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