principles of environmental sustainability (p00807) part 2: the processes and principles of...
TRANSCRIPT
Principles of Environmental Sustainability (P00807)
Part 2: The processes and principles of engagement
Dr Claire HaggettLecturer in Sociology of
Sustainability
Overview
1) Reasons for encouraging engagement2) Engagement in practice Different forms of engagement
Information provision Consultation Deliberation
3) Community benefits4) Community led schemes
1) Reasons for encouraging engagement
1. Pragmatic: public involvement to increasing the likelihood of a successful outcome; may lead to ‘better’ or more competent decisions.
2. Ethics: People have a right to participate in decisions that affect them, and involvement of the public may be an end in itself, rather than being intended to deliver better decisions.
3. Expertise: Local people as lay ‘experts’
2) Engagement in practice
Different forms of engagement Different degrees to which people are
involved, have influence, are valued Three main approaches to engagement
1) Engagement as ‘information provision’
Providing information, attempting to educate Some concerns can be addressed, from trusted
sources In keeping with ‘decide-announce-defend’
tradition, informing people of plans that have been made
Pragmatic basis – avoid ‘problems’ of opposition Examples: distributing leaflets, advertising,
providing exhibitions and displays
Energy saving scheme at St Andrews
People saw the scheme as reflecting an (ongoing) management insensitivity to staff experience – ‘them and us’
Seen as an imposition; top-down; no dialogue; patronising
Seen an insincere (about attempts to undermine authority of different departments, not about saving the planet)
Information provision
Least effective – but most commonly used
‘Bottom-line’ approach to engagement Unlikely to be effective in terms of
encouraging public support and trust, both for the particular proposals, and for the decision-making process as a whole
Information provision
People may well not need ‘education’ or even ‘information’ about a proposal
No direct correlation between information and attitudes
People may be very well informed – not the ‘public deficit’ model
May also be drawing on different knowledge – does not value local knowledge
May antagonise rather than subdue protest Decide-announce-defend: protest is only involvement
permitted Problematises opposition; does not encourage ‘the
silent majority’
(Importance of local knowledge)
Brian Wynne’s work with sheep farmers in Cumbria after Chernobyl
Scientific, expert, empirical, authoritative knowledge
Lived experience Localised knowledge: dependant on
experience, values, attitudes, beliefs Difference between lay and expert
beliefs Difficulties of establishing the validity of
lay knowledges
Farmers’ specialist knowledge was ignored by the experts Standardization built into routines of scientific knowledge ‘Three week model’: based on assumptions of alkaline clay
soils (on which initial experiments had been carried out) But: scientists had overlooked the essentially localised
nature of this knowledge – clay soil not universal (and knowledge drawn from particular conditions was not universal)
Farmers knew about various significant differences in environment, climate factors, management practices between (and within) farms
Reflection of substantial skill from farmers – which they saw wiped out by the (ignorant and insensitive) imposition of expert knowledge
Experts ignored farmers’ informal expertise when they devised and conducted field experiments farmers knew to be unrealistic Experiments involved
penning sheep
2) Engagement as ‘consultation’
Not just providing information to a passive public - but actively elicit their responses
May help to address the reasons for ‘qualified support’ Eg Middlegrunden
3) Engagement as ‘deliberation’ The public are not just permitted to discuss any plans,
but are more thoroughly involved in developing them, along with wider policy, in the first place.
May overcome ‘democratic deficit’ where the minority is able to impose its will
More deliberative processes may assess what the majority thinks
Examples: citizens juries, interactive panels, workshops, and conferences Issues are broadly considered and recommendations for
decision-makers discussed. However, this approach is rare
One example
The UK government engagement process to inform Energy White Paper in 2003
Involved ‘all levels of engagement strategy, from simple information provision to complex deliberative processes’ (Chilvers et al, 2005, p24) Aim - open and inclusive Sought to ‘understand public perceptions of energy and
their energy concerns’ (Chilvers et al, 2005, p25) Included widespread dissemination of material, road
shows, focus groups, deliberative workshops and a final integrating conference
The commitment shown by the government to public engagement was welcomed, and that the key concerns that were raised by the public were largely incorporated and addressed in the White Paper
Success suggests that:
Should be used more as widely and frequently as possible
Decision-making less about deciding, announcing, and defending, and more about local people and decision-makers working together
Views would be sought, and listened to, and outcomes that were satisfactory to all would be negotiated
3) Community Benefits Various different schemes Demonstrable benefits Demonstrates a commitment to the
area Developer seen as accessible and
accountable
Tangible benefits
Scottish Power: £200,000 on windfarm community projects Disabled footpath access Construction of BMX track Repairs to church roof Senior citizen parties Purchase of defibrillator for remote community Music tuition for under-privileged children Full-time energy education officer
Delivery of community benefits key role in fostering and maintaining effective relationships with local communities
Issues with community benefits
Local benefit for the local disadvantage (and the national benefit)
Developer less of an outsider Implies care and responsibility
Bribery? Potential for conflict within community as to
distribution of benefits Who benefits? Who decides?
4) Community-led schemes Rare: Private-sector led model dominates Limited stakeholder development in energy planning and
development Highly centralised energy system creates spatial and
psychological distance between energy generation and use
Previously the domain of alternative activists Since 2000, new policy emphasis and investment in
‘community renewable development’ Series of Government funded programmes aiming to
facilitate, support, and subsidise community based renewable energy projects at the local level
Awel Aman Tawe Community energy project in south Wales Contribution to local regeneration and implementation of
LA21 Schemes including:
Solar hot water panels at local community centres and cinema
24 solar hot water panels for private houses Installing biomass district heating system for 14 new
houses in one village; more being developed (with Family Housing Association)
Energy efficiency grants (eg thermafleece for domestic installation), and advice/workshops
Selected as one of six case studies for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg by the Department for International Development
Community wind farm application
AAT context and history Local area: deprived, high
unemployment, industrially scarred, declining local services, financial insecurity
1998 local residents set up a steering group to use RE developments to encourage local regeneration
Principles: Pro- local involvement Pro- wind energy Aimed to persuade local people to
feel a sense of ownership Profits from electricity generation
back into the communities for social, economic, environmental schemes
Extensive public consultation
Issues of community ownership Hard work
One full year’s work before first funding application Long term commitment Securing funding
Slow responses Finding time and staff (with skills and resources) Highlights any divisions within a community Effort to resist being overtaken and retaining control
“ironic that external companies who are interested in the project because of its (innovative) community led nature should try to take control of it, thereby destroying what is novel about it”
Windfarm proposal
Financial: profits from sale of electricity channelled back into community initiatives “If anyone was going to make a profit out of ‘our’
wind it was going to be us, not some external developer”
Social: facilitation of community decision making; empowerment; building networks; pride
Individual: training, local employment, education and awareness raising
Community response
Considered in light of experiences, networks, local issues
Decline and deprivation of the area Nothing to lose Or – having to suffer a windfarm because is a
deprived area Past experience of coal mining
Healthier comparison Or – area already scarred
Powerful community spirit, with entrenched rivalries and prejudices Flare up over issues like a windfarm
Community response
Potential benefits to the local area should be identified
The importance of social networks and the local context should be recognised
For people to feel that they ‘own’ any project, the plans must be flexible to adapt to key aspects that are important to them
Need to listen to people To understand and show respect for experiences
and concerns To demonstrate the project is committed to locally
important issues
Importance of understanding choices and behaviour
How people make decisions Context Relevance of local, immediate factors
Trust in information Trust in decisions and decision makers Extent to which people are engaged,
involved, offered the opportunity to participate
Can opposition to wind farms be justified?
How can the development of wind farms be done better to engage – rather than antagonise – people about renewable energy?
Should people be able to express their views? Or should we go ahead with valuable projects such as wind farms anyway?
Opposition to wind farms
Ultimate selfish, parochial, anti-green behaviour…?
Disjuncture between local costs and global benefits
Poor relations with developer: opposition to developer, not development
Lack of engagement with process
Key points
Education and information alone is not sufficient
Need to have locally relevant information Need to listen to people and develop locally
relevant solutions Need to take account of tangible, immediate
costs and benefits Need to develop ideas with people, rather
than imposing them upon people Process can be just as important as product