ACES Seminar by Kirsty Blackstock from Mac

1. Does representation matter in Natural Resource Management? A view from Scottish RBMP Kirsty Blackstock With contributions from Keith Marshall, Kerry Waylen, Heather Smith, Jill Dunglinson & Rachel Dilley Socio-Economics Research Group

2. Please note: I am grateful for the input from my work colleagues, and those involved in the River Basin Management Planning (RBMP) process for their insights and ideas However the conclusions drawn here are my own and do not represent their views The following slides represent initial and tentative results from analysis not the final arguments The research was funded by the Scottish Government Environment and Rural Stewardship Research Programme (2006-11).

3. Research aims & objectives Analysis of the principles and practices used to ensure effective, efficient and equitable collaborative management of water quality. Focus on the new institution of River Basin Management Planning (RBMP) in Scotland How are collaborative management decisions negotiated, and how do these decisions deliver improved water quality and other objectives? How are RBMP institutions in Scotland developing and changing through time? How does scale (time and space) affect collaborative management processes?

4. Why stakeholder involvement? Institutions can be defined as “a socially embedded system of rules” (Hodgson, 2006:8) System reliant on perception of legitimacy, which maintains claims to authority - vital to maintain and enforce these rules But often a ‘democratic legitimacy deficit’ between policies and their enactment Hence increased focus on processes that generate legitimacy Transparency is essential to allow scrutiny Legitimacy must be earned - no longer sufficient to claim through position alone Myriad reasons for these changes – ecological crises; uncertainty; intractable problems; decline of nation state; decline of traditional hierarchies; rise of networks leading to theories of risk society; late modernity; network society Other claims for stakeholder involvement are more ‘instrumental’ – about consensus in order to improve the environment

5. Theories of governance General agreement regarding shift from government to governance Characterised as move from hierarchy to heterarchy (networks) Jessop claims governance occurs in the shadow of hierarchy Increased interest in multi-level governance (MLG) recognising that decisions influenced simultaneously by actors at local, regional, national and supra-national levels Many believe governance creates problems for legitimacy entrenchment of elites, problems with accountability, loss of transparency and failure to focus on public goods Therefore governance simultaneously seen as cure and cause of problems with legitimacy of decision making processes!

6. Theories of representation Governance means increased attention to who influences decisions Theories of representation focus on the rationale for inclusion; their mandate and their connection to their constituencies Ideal representative summarised by Webler (1993) as having ‘fairness’ and ‘competence’ Chevalier (2001) more attention to representation required for complex and cross cutting NRM problems

7. Water Framework Directive European legislation transposed as Water Environment and Water Services (WEWS) Act (2003) Objectives delivered through River Basin Management Planning (RBMP) Good ecological status or potential By 2015, 2021, 2027 unless technically, economically or socially infeasible

8. WFD timetable

9. Administrative Arrangements Active involvement Consultation SEPA, 2005 Information provision

10. Administrative Arrangements Scotland has 2 RBDs Scotland 8 AAGs Solway-Tweed 2 AAGs National AG Covers both RBDs

11. Methodological rationale Call for context specific, constructivist analysis of stakeholder involvement in NRM About practices of representation and governance everyday politics and negotiations Longitudinal allows for dynamic stakeholder analysis Stretching ‘ethnography’ to the limit – national institution building

12. Data collection: Mixed sources Questionnaires in 2006-7; 2008-9; 2010-11 NAG & Argyll, Clyde, North-East, Tweed groups – 28 % av. Resp. All 11 groups – 21% average response rate Transcripts and field notes from advisory group meetings Attended total of 45 meetings 2006 – 2010 Allowed to tape two AAGs, field notes only for the others unable to attend five meetings; three meetings were cancelled, one was held by correspondence Meeting papers and drafts of public documents Formal (recorded) and informal discussions with RB coordinators 2006 – 2010 Last meeting to be held March 2011

13. Data analysis Descriptive statistics of closed questions via excel Qualitative analysis of open questions, field notes, transcripts and documents Use of NVIVO 8 to manage data Inductive and deductive codes applied to data Team based coding with collective discussions Themes arising interrogated with regard to who, when, how and why? Focus on consultation, communication, representation, group dynamics and free ‘NVIVO’ nodes Discourse analysis of pertinent text within themes of interest

14. Multi-level, multi-faceted arena Multi-level Not just 2 levels (NAG & AAG) but break out groups; sub groups and 1:1 meetings for stakeholders as well as forum Multiple actors Did not collect data on Chairs group, RBMP network within Scottish Government, ‘Stakeholders’ forum Multiple stages River Basin Management plans built up from Characterisation Reports (2004), Significant Water Management Issues Report (2007) and framed by Plan of Action (2006) Supported by Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment

15. RBMP: tip of an iceberg or rhizome?

16. Who is invited to join?

17. Stakeholder involvement rationale AAG should combine Responsible Authorities (under WEWS) Article 5 Assessments (“must have” sectors based on cause of impacts) Local deliverers and knowledge (reinforced at meetings) SEPA undertook a top down instrumental stakeholder analysis during 2005-6 Was checked with groups in 2006 and again in 2009 (prompted by our research) Stakeholders & their stakes are defined through this process Mixture of instrumental and substantive focus - no explicit focus on normative goals who knows how, a bit of who knows what but not who knows why?

18. Stakeholder involvement within N/AAG Remit to advise on plans, priorities, objectives and measures and enable delivery Ongoing confusion “people are not very clear about the outcomes they are working towards which creates problems” (AAG Chair, 2006) Groups to provide ‘commitment, communication and scrutiny’ (Chair, NAG, 2009)

19. Descriptive stakeholder analysis Total of 62 organisations attended one or more meetings NAG has most organisations (33) – Argyll least (20) Individuals or organisations? Individuals were experienced professionals, often +20 yrs experience Predominantly science qualifications and technical skills Small minority have economic degrees/skills, no soc scientists All groups contained 1-2 with experience of partnership working or policies 19 individuals from 8 organisations attended more than one group One of most vocal participants attended all five groups

20. What organisations are represented?

22. Mandate Half of questionnaire respondents had a delegated mandate Three was not sure of their mandate; six felt depended on issue One stakeholder did not give an affiliation at several meetings although started off representing enterprise but self-identified as a local farmer Almost have had a representative mandate – need authority before sign off Explains debate over sign off and endorsement of dRBMPs (all groups, 08) Membership organisations raise particular problems “people pay a subscription, they don’t expect to be dictated to by the organisation and if they feel they are , then they leave” (SPBRA, 07) – “we facilitate but we can’t ensure action” (NFUS, 07) Others don’t mention this e.g. LINK, COSLA , SWA

24. Potential for multiple stake-holding positions to be taken…. but

25. Our data shows strong evidence for corporatist motivations

27. Distinguish between presence and influence Influence related to capacity; information provision; group dynamics; conflict; power and persuasion These both promote and impede deliberation and representation of constituents, interests or objectives These inductive themes also match enabling and constraining issues identified by respondents in 06-07 Technical information, importance of communication Behaviour of individuals and organisations within the group Need to involve wider or missing stakeholders Behaviour of SEPA staff and issues of leadership

29. Differential in capacity raised by members (e.g. Argyll, 2009)

30. Several questionnaire respondents highlighted importance of organisations providing sufficient support for process (2006-7)

31. Majority attend within working day, but some at own expense

33. Just over half respondents read all material before meetings but only 30% feel there is too much information provided

34. Mainly NGOs and self-employed

35. However, issues about balance of info provision .v. deliberation

36. “the AAG meetings can be like a SEPA newsflash” (Clyde)

37. Initial meetings dominated by SEPA presentationsRegular or multiple attendees dominate questions “this is the 4th time I’ve heard this presentation” (Argyll, 2007) Quality of deliberation “Read once and comment is not a safe strategy” (WH respondent, 2008)

38. Group Dynamics Literature highlights importance of within group social capital for deliberation and representation Success requires them to ‘gel as a group’ (Clyde) and ‘to bond and build trust with each other’ (North-East) Whilst many members know one another, not all do Introductions at most meetings – ‘still some new faces’ in 2010 Use of first names – informal or exclusionary? Use of field trips for ‘trust building’ and ‘bonding’ (RBC, 2009; 2007) Break out groups also very useful for increased deliberation

39. Group Dynamics Very little overt conflict in meetings “as the agenda has very little that is contentious, it is hard to pick a fight” (NAG 2008, industry) Most negotiation on specific interests ‘offline’ (Clyde, NAG) Jokes and banter – even when arguing “who are you calling a polluter! [laughs] ” (industry, Argyll, 07) Agency: “I am heartened there is no blood on the carpet” Industry: “It’s a result for SEPA as nobody cried foul!”(NAG, 07) Literature divided over whether this is to do with too much or too little trust (bonding social capital)

40. Conflict – objective setting and tradeoffs Coordinators realise can’t please everyone – aiming for a plan that ‘they can live with’ Contestation of data leading to classification and objective setting Fear of increased regulation leading to increased costs “another stick to beat us” (Argyll, 2006); “plan will regulate the regulated” (NAG, 2008); “affordability for Scotland plc” (NAG, 2009) Debates within the private sector – enforcing point .v. diffuse source measures; downstream private interests ‘more sinned against than sinning’ (NAG, 2008) Anger at separation of regulatory and non-regulatory measures within RBMP process Mainly raised by private interests but NGOs and agencies also recognise the need for interplay of measures

41. Power and persuasion – whose plan? dRBMP published by SEPA; final by Scottish Government which is ‘appropriate’ (NAG chair, Dec 09) Coordinators and chairs often noted that it was ‘Scotland’s plan not SEPA’s plan (RBC, 2008; 2009; NE 2009, Clyde, 2008, NAG 2007) Individuals made contributions ranging from commenting on the overall plans to writing case studies and drafting key issues sections Member disagreed when SEPA talked about ‘our plan’ (industry, NAG, 2009) SEPA communications department, conform to ‘SEPA style’ and are signed off by SEPA board. SEPA wanted collective sign off but it was not a collective process to set objectives or agree classification

45. Often suggest that representation of sector should take place in formal consultation processes (e.g. Tweed, 07)

46. However reality is that both collective and corporate behaviour occur within meetings

47. Is double dipping a burden or a privilege?They get to influence documents yet they have to resource attendance as well as still respond to formal consultations

48. What about non-members?

49. Stakeholders not present but still influence Some industries are noted as missing from groups - invited but choose not to attend Input via formal consultation and as corresponding members Debate over classification, standards, terminology and timetable closed down as already agreed by DEFRA or European commission Most members can’t access these decisions now, although previous consultations were held Role of science and regulatory functions in SEPA Their local and expert knowledge used to populate SWMI and set objectives - answer to SEPA board not AAGs

50. Role of Government Scottish Government defined themselves as observers the upward revision of ambition in final plan in part due to direction from ‘government’ developed their ‘closing the gap’ strategy for new measures based on NAG deliberations Politicians not involved in AAGs Democratic legitimacy via sign off from Scottish Government not from input of elected members AAG members worry about accountability note the concerns about how to explain ‘worse’ state of water environment to the public (all groups, 2008)

51. Stakeholders not present but should be Chairs and coordinators stress the need for a plan that reflects views of people ‘beyond those in this room’ Members periodically raise need to engage other stakeholders Most often raised by umbrella, hybrid or membership organisations SEPA checked stakeholder analysis with members in 06 & 08-09 Only 28% respondents (08-09) feel other stakeholders had been meaningfully involved in developing the plan Majority are neutral or don’t know

52. Stakeholders indirectly involved AAG joining instructions require members to Ensure the consultation and participation of stakeholders and the wider public Members offered many suggestions on who to involve and how to involve them E.g. presentations, newsletters, media profile, field visits, educational material Often wanted SEPA to do these ‘although aware of resource issues’ (NE, 2009) Some members did present at forums and provide material to be used

53. Mechanisms for engaging non-members Attendance at other meetings RBC attended many meetings, conferences and shows at the invite of members in 2008-9 No records but RBC feel this approach generally effective Forum 67% of respondents felt forums well used or used to some extent Use of forums differed between groups Does raise awareness of consultation opportunities via e-alerts Website & GIS 55% of respondents (08-09) felt website somewhat effective in providing information to other stakeholders Surprise as website was over a year out of date at the time Many problems with GIS over consultation process but now upgraded Some members asked if consultation process valid if GIS not working

56. What has the WFD done for us? WFD both required inclusive spatial planning process whilst restricting the ability to truly deliberate (Steyart and Ollivier, 2007) WFD used as a lever by fishery and environmental interests to open up regulation of water environment to all pressures in pursuit of public and private interests Regulated industries have resisted to some extent, but mainly focussed on reducing not rejecting the regulatory burden – recognise the need to maintain social contract over use of the environment Problems with inclusion and deliberation due to combination of scale of change within short time tables, limiting ability to deliberate over problem framing However, urgency ensured progress and forced SEPA to use other data

57. Scottish RBMP leading good practice More inclusive than many places in Europe – gone beyond legal minimum, put resources into this Considerable achievements in spite of WFD constraint Majority of respondents continue to attend and were happy with objectives RBMP team have evolved, learnt, responded in response to input RBMP ‘only game in town’ – even those unhappy with the process can’t afford to ignore it

58. Conclusion: representation Debates within and between stakeholder sectors, including SEPA Less conflict that expected – real negotiation occurs offline and in alternative venues Tension between SEPA as leader and SEPA as developing shared consensus for shared responsibility Organised corporate organisations (agency and private) have more influence than disorganised or heterogeneous representatives - an example of ‘internal exclusion’ (Parkins and Mitchell:2005:534) unless these had particular claims to authority via knowledge or policy connections

59. Negotiating the ‘triple’ challenge Borowski (2010) highlights the double challenge of engaging in collective deliberation whilst representing the stake of the constituents multi-directional idea of accountability (Lockwood, 2010) Our data suggests that members actually face a triple challenge Negotiating their own complex identities and multiple stakes Balancing corporatist and communicative strategies within groups Being responsible for holding SEPA and Scottish Government to account on behalf of others whilst also ensuring these ‘others’ deliver measures in the RBMP

60. Conclusion: representation Many NRM studies don’t acknowledge the evolution of representation and the interplay between individuals, group dynamics, organisations and institution building Longitudinal ethnographic analysis of multi-level governance of NRM in Scotland generated a ‘Russian doll of representation’ to analyse Whether the representation process; and its participants, is ‘competent’ and ‘fair’ depends on your perspective Little evidence for normative motivations for representation - difficult to identify where and how legitimacy is earned or how process levels the playing field Unsurprising given instrumental rationale for stakeholder choice and involvement Is the ‘social licence to operate’ (Parkin, 2010: 834) conferred by the legal status, making the process of deliberation relevant only to the quality of the outcome not the process?

61. Publications on this topic A contextual framework for understanding good practice in integrated catchment management., Marshall, K.; Blackstock, K.L.; Dunglinson, J., (2010) Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 53, 63-89. Between a rock and a hard place: incompatible objectives at the heart of river basin planning?, Blackstock, K.L., (2009) Water Science and Technology, 59, 425-431. Climate proofing Scottish River Basin Planning: A future challenge., Blackstock, K.L.; Dunglinson, J.; Matthews, K.B.; Dilley, R.; Futter, M., (2009) Environmental Policy and Governance, 19, 374-387. Operationalising sustainability science for a sustainability directive? Reflecting on three pilot projects., Blackstock, K.L.; Carter, C.E., (2007) Geographical Journal, 173, 343-357. Evaluating stakeholder involvement in river basin planning: a Scottish case study., Blackstock, K.L.; Richards, C., (2007) Water Policy, 9, 493-512. Planned: Linking scientific and local knowledge in RBMP Opening up and understanding diffuse pollution in Scotland Stakeholder involvement in Strategic Planning – is this scale dependent? Are the RBMPs really an example of an ecosystem approach? Papers arising from Heather Smith’s PhD on linking RBMP to land use spatial plans