Government’s position that it will defend the coast
only where it is sustainable to do so, and that it does not plan to compensate
individuals for any loss of property, has proven contentious. By way of
mitigation where homes are to be lost to the sea, it has stated an intention to
support communities in adapting to the physical, social and economic effects of
change.. .”[1] (p.19).
DEFRA-commissioned guidance for local authorities
specific to this purpose – ‘Guidance for Community Adaptation Planning and
Engagement (CAPE) on the Coast’ - states that
“communities that are most at risk to coastal change (sic) must be informed,
engaged, and empowered to take an active part in what happens locally.”[2] (p.7)
Whilst government acknowledges, then, that some communities will need
support in contributing to policy decisions, a reading of relevant academic
literature suggests a more fundamental dissonance between government
prescription and the experiences of citizens in their engagement with
authority.
A small
number of UK studies has considered relevant coastal change and related
governance arrangements. Whilst it is important to be wary of generalisation,
they have potential for shedding light on – and prompting further questions
about - how threatened coastal populations fare in their interactions with
power.
In these
studies, the involvement of people in coastal planning takes place in a variety
of contexts – from structured and facilitated deliberative events involving
local people in formal ‘stakeholder’ capacities, to citizens’ interests largely
being represented in decision-making fora via local elected representatives, to
more ‘hands-off’ involvement such as attending public exhibitions. O’Riordan et
al[3] and Milligan et al[4] explore the potential of
participatory approaches[5]
to involving local people in the setting of coastal policy, and report
improved relationships and greater
understanding between the various parties involved. Milligan et al suggest potential for finding
a successful common vision for the Winterton-on-Sea case study area (p.211),
whilst O’Riordan et al report a willingness by participants in their North
Norfolk study to engage in debate, with a raised awareness of the issues
emerging alongside the bringing together of various facets of coastal
management. (p.12) It’s good, of course,
to sing from the same hymn sheet.
Conflicting
objectives
However,
this is contradicted by findings that locating common ground between actors is
a problem - Milligan et al find that that local and official cultures are
neither aligned nor likely to be in the future, with one problem lying in the
limits to what people are able to understand (p.210)[6] Difficulties are also presented by the need to
balance the sometimes conflicting objectives of a wide mix of stakeholders
(Milligan et al, 2009; p.211). O’Riordan et al point to the importance, on one
hand, that participants’ expectations of the degree of influence on decisions
should be managed and, on the other, their desire to have ownership of the
outcomes – a tension possibly exacerbated by concerns that agencies and
authorities are unwilling to give up power to negotiated results (p.24-25). It
is perhaps telling that the researchers identify the very need for public
acceptability as a blockage to the effective delivery of managed realignment
schemes (p.23)[7].
Whereas
O’Riordan et al and Milligan et al explore participatory approaches to decision
making in this context, Fletcher[8] looks at coastal
partnerships which employ a different approach. Whilst such arrangements have
the potential for local people to participate, the orthodoxy instead appears to
be one whereby communities find voice on decision-making bodies via local elected
representatives[9].
This study, which explores relationships between the various stakeholder
representatives in the relevant decision-making bodies and their constituencies
and the making of decisions/setting of policies through partnerships, points to
various issues with the ways in which the interests of coastal communities are
understood, the motivations of those who represent them, and how power
imbalances come to influence the making of decisions and policies.
Many stakeholders in Fletcher’s study reported limited enthusiasm for their role and its value (it is unclear whether this includes those representing the public interest), with very few operating within a formal system to identify any misrepresentation. Interestingly, Fletcher reports that those participants representing the public interest “had no direct method of seeking the views of the public except for informal ad hoc routes” (p.618).[10] This, we must assume, is likely to raise the bar for local interests seeking to be exert influence in such fora.
Doubts
were expressed concerning the robustness of decision-making processes, with
opportunities to influence agendas perceived as poor and concern expressed over
how contributions were received from the wider community of stakeholders. In
each of the partnerships studied, a degree of inequality of influence over
decision-making was perceived by respondents, with funding, chairing and
hosting of partnerships all seen as important in this regard.
The
studies hint at issues that arise from the literature on coastal change
regarding the ability of local people to influence state-led efforts to make
related policy – whether that should be
as a consequence of a reluctance on the part of authority to submit their interests
to negotiated outcomes, the effectiveness of elected representatives, the power
that various actors are able to bring to bear on making decisions and setting
policy, or irreconcilable expectations of local influence on decisions.[11]
Of course, this is based on a very small number of studies with diffuse
objectives, and so any conclusions must be tentative. However, it is worth
saying that they chime broadly with findings from a recent and significant
piece of work. In 2009 the Joseph Rowntree Foundation
published a round-up of findings 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.”[12]
(p.2) As with the literature on coastal
policy, conclusions suggested “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.
There are many coastal
activists who have developed a deep appreciation of the help given them by politicians
and local authority officers on this issue – indeed, I am one of them. Many will also tell of their frustration at the
disinterest, incompetence, and even obstruction of others in similar positions
of influence – sadly I am one of this group, also. It would be good to think
that the promise of ‘partnership’ might iron out some of these inconsistencies,
but the literature – light as it might be at the moment – does not offer us a
great deal of hope in that regard. We deserve, and need, authorities to sing a
different and better hymn.
[1]
Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2009a. Consultation on Coastal Change Policy. London: DEFRA.
[2]
Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 2009b. Guidance for
Community Adaptation Planning and Engagement (CAPE) on the Coast, working
paper, Scott Wilson/DEFRA.
[3] O’Riordan, T.,
Watkinson, A. and Milligan, J. 2006. Living
with a changing coastline: Exploring new forms of governance for sustainable
coastal futures. Technical report 49. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research.
[4]
Milligan, J.,
O’Riordan, T., Nicholson-Cole, S. and Watkinson, A. 2009. Nature conservation
for future sustainable shorelines: Lessons from seeking to involve the public. Land Use Policy , 26, pp. 203-213.
[5] What Arnstein might
categorize as ‘partnership’, whereby power is distributed through negotiations,
with responsibilities shared. http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html#d0e42
[6] In sympathy with this
finding, Few et al conclude that “public input into decision-making is devalued
if information on long-term implications of climate change is insufficiently
accessible.” (2007, p.265)
[7] Myatt et al see
public relations as a means through which authorities might alleviate public
scepticism (2003, p.566), and as having a role in the promotion of managed
realignment. This would appear to see engagement as having a persuasive rather
than simply democratic purpose potentially at the expense of discourse around
conflict, legitimacy and social justice.
[8]
Fletcher,
S.,
2007. Representing Stakeholder Interests in Partnership Approaches to Coastal
Management: Experiences from the United Kingdom. Ocean &Coastal Management, 50(8), pp.
606-622.
[9] Held proposes that
political representation “involves the delegation of government to ‘a small
number of citizens elected by the rest’.” (1987, p.64)
[10]
Concerns that such
a model of stakeholder representation may not guarantee that local people are
properly represented are echoed by Milligan et al (2009, p. 206).
[11] More fundamentally, a
recurring theme in these studies is that managed realignment is seen by local
people as politically controversial – especially where radical change is
proposed.
[12] Foot, J., 2009.Citizen
involvement in local governance: Reviewing the evidence. York: Joseph
Rowntree Foundation.
