Professional Documents
Culture Documents
06 القيادة- محمد العثمني (88-22-2021)
06 القيادة- محمد العثمني (88-22-2021)
net/publication/265164513
CITATIONS READS
0 150
1 author:
Richard Bull
Nottingham Trent University
47 PUBLICATIONS 608 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Bull on 30 August 2014.
f
17
context into household waste management and the controversial siting and
18
19
20
21
oo
development of Energy from Waste (EfW) facilities, to the wider sustainability
debate. Within the field of sustainable development, climate change has emerged
as the dominant discourse (Lovell et al. 2009), yet the challenge of waste – and,
in this instance, household waste – is highly relevant. The rise in waste1 has
pr
22
23 been, in part, a consequence of increasing consumerism and a throw-away
24 society. The issue of waste brings the thinking on sustainability into sharp focus
25 – that is, the resources of the world are finite, as is space for the disposal of
26 waste.
F
29
30 the key actors in section three. Section four evaluates the effects of these new
31 modes of governance on learning before concluding with reflections upon the
32 implications of this case study for the wider sustainability debate and discourse
T
33 theory.
34 What is meant by sustainability? Sustainability is often seen as a catch-all
35 term for all things green and environmental and is used interchangeably with the
36 phrase sustainable development (see Chapter 1, Barnes and Hoerber, for a fuller
37 critique of these concepts). The Brundtland Report (WCED 1987; see also
38 Figure I.1), in which the term was used for the first time, offered a definition that
39 was purposely vague. This caused commentators to view this both as a strength
40 and a weakness, its ambiguity offering life through the continued discourse
41 taking place on both its normative value and instrumental usefulness (Jordan
42 2008). Porritt (2006) draws the helpful distinction between sustainability as the
43 destination and sustainable development as the process to get to the destination
44 (2006: 27). A point echoed by Leach et al. (2010), who argue that sustainability
45 is not a fixed state to be achieved, but rather a political process.
f
consumer-capitalism to one that has greater respect and understanding for the 17
planet. Hence, one of the five principles of sustainable development is promot- 18
ment – has had a strong and prominent role in delivering policy and services. 27
Jessop (1999) argues that, from the 1970s–1980s, this dominance slowly 28
&
ibilities and power away from central government has been referred to as the 33
‘hollowing out’ of the state (Pierre 2000). There is growing consensus that the 34
process of delivering the aims of the state – that is, governance – has changed 35
(Jessop 1999; Jordan 2008). 36
In particular, new modes of governance have emerged – that is, participation 37
in environmental decision-making with the increasing desire for individual 38
citizens to act as stakeholders and take personal responsibility for the decisions 39
that affect them. Proponents of what is referred to as deliberative democracy 40
argue the case for strong democracy (Barber 2003) based on conditions and prin- 41
ciples within discourse theory enabling ideal speech and communicative com- 42
petence (Habermas 1984), or discursive democracy (Dryzek 1990). The testing 43
of deliberative processes and the increase in public engagement has been par- 44
ticularly evident in waste management decision-making (Petts 1995, 2001). 45
f
17
18 is reasonably knowable under present conditions. For example, there is a need to
19
20
21
oo
ensure access to the best available information. For example, in the case of a
group discussing energy from waste that could mean the opportunity to hear
from the experts in the relevant waste technology and to test out their claims
(Webler and Tuler 2000).
pr
22
23 The inference, then, is that deliberative democracy stands as a key principle
24 of sustainable development in offering a normative and just way of governing.
25 But can it offer more than that? If the sustainable development project is to gain
26 any real currency or have profound societal impact then people’s actions need to
F
29
30 in 2010) and advised from the social marketing school of thought (Futerra 2005).
31 Recent findings show that whilst there is widespread concern and awareness
32 about climate change, it rarely manifests itself through measurable behaviour
T
33 change (Lorenzoni et al. 2007). Others have identified the need for a different
34 approach which recognises complexity in perception and understanding (Nie-
35 meyer et al. 2005; Hulme 2009), the importance of combining bottom-up and
36 top-down approaches, i.e. minimising mixed messages (Owens and Driffill
37 2008), and the importance of public engagement (Ockwell et al. 2009). This last
38 point is crucial given that public engagement is increasingly linked to social
39 learning.
40 Social learning, it is argued, should be a strong component, as well as an
41 important outcome, of public participation, particularly forms of engagement
42 based on deliberation (Webler et al. 1995; Tippett et al. 2005; Bull et al. 2008).
43 More than simply individuals learning in a social situation, social learning sug-
44 gests cognitive enhancement (that is, moving beyond technical competence to an
45 understanding of the implications of the acquisition of knowledge), and moral
f
national) are inextricably involved through the manufacture and marketing of 17
products and the consumption, collection and disposal of goods. Furthermore, 18
oo
the solution to the household waste management crisis requires not just the
involvement of business and governments, but also of individual citizens (i.e.
those who create it).
19
20
21
pr
This last point is crucial to the governance of sustainability and, indeed, to 22
discourse theory. How these three actors can work together, communicate with 23
one another, and learn and change is highly relevant. al change, for example, is 24
crucial if the public is going to move from concern to action (Lorenzoni et al. 25
2007). From findings in Hampshire surrounding the governance of household 26
F
ance of waste (and sustainability) and the discursive processes that have created 29
a legacy of learning: local authorities, business and citizens. Building on Haber- 30
masian (1984) notions of the ideal conditions for speech, this framework sug- 31
gests circumstances to maximise the potential of public engagement, and thus 32
T
f
17 The CAFs were exposed to a significant amount of written information
18 (indeed, a library of material was maintained for each CAF ) and they went on
19
20
21
oo
site visits (for example, to recycling facilities and an EfW facility). They
received presentations from experts, could ask for any additional information at
any point, and, in the case of some members, attended expert conferences (e.g.
pr
22 on dioxins). In all, the process represented an intensive and protracted process of
23 exposure to expert knowledge and also the views of other members of the com-
24 munity. The process encouraged debate and opportunities to challenge and vali-
25 date claims through small group and plenary discussions.
26 The outcome of the consultation process was an agreed waste strategy which
F
27 was put out to tender for delivery. Onyx (now Veolia Environmental Services)
28 won the contract and formed a novel partnership with the county (operating as
&
29 Hampshire Waste Services under the title Project Integra) to deliver three new,
30 small (under 200,000 tonnes per annum) EfWs. Part of their contract required
31 them to engage with each local community prior to submitting the planning
32 applications.
T
33 To that end, three contact groups were convened by Hampshire Waste Ser
34 vices (HWS) to discuss the developing applications and associated Environ-
35 mental Impact Assessments (EIAs). They recruited people on a similar basis to
36 that used for the CAFs, but this time from those communities which were poten-
37 tially directly affected. The discussion groups were chaired by an independent
38 member of the community, but on this occasion were facilitated by HWS staff
39 rather than independent engagement consultants. Discussion meetings and site
40 visits allowed for the participants to question the proposals and elements of the
41 EIA that were of concern, such as traffic, air quality and health, ecology, and,
42 importantly, design (Petts 1995, 2001)
43 For HWS, using this ‘contact group’ process was a key milestone. Two of the
44 three facilities were granted planning permission without having to go to public
45 inquiry with evidence of political confidence to take a local decision. Only in
f
17
emphasis on learning structures, institutions and culture has highlighted the pri- 18
oo
ority of the individual in learning (Argyris and Schon 1978; Senge 1990). This
re-emphasis is helpful. However, the findings of the organisational learning
research demonstrate that the external context – the social, organisational, and
19
20
21
pr
political context within which public engagement processes operate – has the 22
potential not only to affect the running of engagement processes, but also the 23
learning within. 24
Figure 14.1 is developed from analysis of the structures that exist to manage 25
waste in Hampshire. Local authorities, business and individual citizens all 26
F
authorities where the county has a set of defined responsibilities – for example, 33
as a waste planning authority (WPA) and waste disposal authority (WDA) – and 34
the district authorities have the responsibility for collecting household waste 35
(waste collection authority: WCA). Alternatively, there are unitary authorities 36
that combine all of the waste collection, disposal and planning functions. There 37
are also local parish councils, which, although having relatively minor respons- 38
ibilities (in comparison to district, city and county councils) such as maintaining 39
local facilities, do have local significance and power in that they are closest to a 40
community. 41
Business, as shown in Figure 14.1, refers to private sector organisations such 42
as Veolia that operate differently to local authorities and are subject to different 43
pressures. For example, there are greater profit and economic motives and con- 44
stant pressure (from shareholders, for example) to remain competitive. However, 45
t
en
En
12
em
ga
ge
ag
13
me
g
En
14
nt
15
16
f
17
18 Citizens
19
20
21
oo
Figure 14.1 A relational framework for learning.
pr
22
23 a common theme running through all organisations is that they are all ‘social
24 structures created by individuals to support the pursuit of collective goals’ (Scott
25 1992: 10). Just as public sector institutions are not monolithic, neither are busi-
26 nesses. Buildings and offices may exist – in the case of Veolia, these are multi-
F
27 site – but these do not equate to what Senge, in conversation in 1998, referred to
28 as the heart of the organisation (Fulmer and Keys 1998).
&
29 In Figure 14.1 citizens are the individuals who participate in a contact group
30 or CAFs and are able to share their views, to interact and engage, and (hope-
31 fully) to learn. As individual participants, they each bring to the process a unique
32 and different perspective underpinned by their personal knowledge (both tacit
T
33 and explicit). They will also be members of households who participate in the
34 waste recycling schemes and send their waste for disposal – the social role of
35 waste management. In the case of the contact group processes, they are also the
36 people who live near the facilities once they are built. Bringing together such a
37 diverse group of individuals and giving them a voice is central to the learning
38 process, and the wider democratic role, with the potential to call to account those
39 who make decisions on their behalf, be they local authorities or, increasingly,
40 business.
41
42
A definition of learning style
43
44 Learning is at the centre of the framework in Figure 14.1. This is not to imply
45 that learning occurs abstractly, separate from the actors or the processes. Rather,
f
in order to maximise learning, and other empirical evidence has identified the 17
components of management required (Petts 2006). 18
oo
For Mezirow (2003), learning is a reflexive process which leads to per-
sonal transformation that can be equated with environmental citizenship (Bull
et al. 2008). Reflexivity is also fundamental to Kolb’s reflexive loop (1971).
19
20
21
pr
Reflection upon an experience comprises the two critical first steps that lead 22
to action – for example, the failure of the original proposal to build the large- 23
scale incinerator. Reflexivity in real time decision-making is a significant 24
challenge, however. Whilst key members of Veolia were able to reflect upon 25
the success of Hampshire, when they approached their contract in East Sussex 26
F
f
17
18 exhibited and promoted particularly by the key individual champions, but also
19
20
21
oo
by the participation and support of all 13 districts in the development of the
household waste strategy and its subsequent implementation.
Whilst a partnership is a formal contractual relationship between all of the
different parties, in practical terms it is individuals who make it happen. A part-
pr
22
23 nership must constitute specific terms of reference – for example, there are hard
24 issues to be dealt with as Project Integra develops its materials resource strategy
25 further, such as the sharing of the financial risk necessary to create new facilities
26 and infrastructure. However, this research has confirmed that it is the soft people
F
27 issues that are often key to the success of a partnership (and learning).
28 So, partnership within this framework of learning is not simply a new form
of governance or a contractual bond between all of the parties responsible for
&
29
30 waste management, although both of these are necessary and critical. Project
31 Integra was not simply a partnership between the collection and disposal
32 authorities, although this in itself was paramount to its success – it involved
T
33 the waste contractor as well. Critically, through these connections the success-
34 ful implementation of the waste strategy becomes the responsibility of
35 everyone. In a partnership such as Project Integra, business and local authori-
36 ties are mutually dependent upon one another. In this way, partnership denotes
37 a shared emotional commitment to work together, steered and managed by
38 people with vision.
39
40
Engagement
41
42 If learning is to refer to some enhanced competence for action and self-
43 understanding . . . then the simple existence of any interaction will not con-
44 stitute learning.
45 (Forester 1985: 264)
f
within the wider processes of governance and democracy and Habermasian 17
ideals of ideal speech and communicative competence are operationalized. Pro 18
oo
cesses such as the CAFs allow the individual to understand, debate and offer
opinions on the issues affecting them. People are able to challenge and question
central ideas of sustainability (in this case, waste management). The meaning of
19
20
21
pr
concepts such as energy-from-waste as opposed to incineration can be debated 22
along with health issues or fears over transport. Ultimately, it affords individuals 23
the opportunity to challenge and hold to account those in power and who make 24
decisions. Such processes, whilst imperfect, encapsulate the values of delibera- 25
tion democracy as defined by Dryzek (2000: 1) – that is, a process in which 26
F
people are open to changing their views through ‘persuasion rather than coer- 27
cion, manipulation or deception’. Critically, the quality of the deliberation is 28
&
f
17 that preceded the formation of the partnership, provided HWS with the confi-
18 dence to develop the contact group process around the proposed sites for EfW. A
19
20
21
oo
household waste strategy informed by the CAF process meant that the broader
issues surrounding waste management had been dealt with and had achieved a
transparent consensus. HWS was now relatively free to engage with the specific
pr
22 issues and concerns surrounding EfW. As such, the contact group process was
23 reasonably successful – attendance was strong and the debates mainly lively and
24 constructive. In one of the contact groups, interviewees reported not only a good
25 experience, but also a significant impact upon the route of the waste lorries (to
26 and from the facility) as well as the design of the facility (Bull 2008a, 2008b).
F
27 The influence of the CAFs upon the learning of the individuals involved, and
28 as a precursor to effective facilitation of the contact group process, cannot be
&
29 overstated. The decision by HCC to use these groups and to involve the private
30 sector in running and facilitating them was instrumental. It provided a degree of
31 independence and, importantly, it brought highly professional and knowledge-
32 able (in terms of waste management) facilitators into the process. The contact
T
33 group process has the opportunity to bridge the missing link in the governance
34 of waste between citizens and business. They form quite a unique model of
35 engagement between business and citizens, affording opportunities for dialogue.
36 While many waste companies have formalised engagement in the operational
37 phase through local liaison groups (as does Veolia, discussed below) pre-
38 implementation engagement is far less common.
39 Partnerships and engagement activities stand to benefit the private sector
40 organisations. For example, Moon et al. (2003) argue that an organisation’s cor-
41 porate citizenship can be measured by its engagement in civic processes. They
42 suggest that those wishing to apply the metaphor of citizenship to organisations
43 need to provide examples of business balancing ‘individual and social benefits
44 and to participate in deliberative activities’ (Moon et al. 2003: 21). The contact
45 group process does precisely that. A commitment to using deliberative processes
f
Like the governance of household waste, sustainability must be a multi-actor 17
process. The widespread adoption of sustainable lifestyles will only be pos- 18
oo
sible through the active involvement of everyone with responsibilities in this
process: local authorities, business, and citizens. Policy and market forces
affect the learning and involvement of local citizens. Forester (1985) noted
19
20
21
pr
that these forces place restrictions on citizens’ learning through the existence 22
of conflicting messages. If the UK government is going to succeed in its move 23
towards a ‘low-carbon economy’, then it will need a collective and coherent 24
effort. At the local level, for example, it is futile for local authorities to set 25
targets for the reduction of CO2 per capita (for example, local government 26
F
Herein lies the contribution of discourse theory, as based on the work of Hab- 29
ermas, to the governance of sustainability debate. Spaces must be created to 30
allow people to talk about the issues that directly affect them, to challenge 31
power and authenticity, and to establish new discourses. In doing so a better 32
T
argument can emerge and solutions can be found to the grand challenges of 33
today, not least the challenge of sustainability. 34
Yet there are contested barriers/nodal points to this approach which, to a large 35
extent, demonstrate why innovative deliberative approaches are few and far 36
between. Managing and operationalizing discourse theory is not easy. Good 37
deliberative engagement requires skill, time and money. There is a difference 38
between consultation – of which we have suffered an overload in recent years – 39
and deliberation. The irony that it takes highly developed formal structures to 40
facilitate the discursive processes that enable learning has already been noted. 41
Critically, this research has clearly demonstrated that these processes do not – 42
and indeed cannot – operate in a vacuum. The case study also highlighted the 43
extent to which the actions of Hampshire County Council and Veolia involved 44
risk, and a large degree of personal commitment between key individuals to 45
f
17 Argyris, C. and D. Schon (1978). Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Per-
18 spective. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley.
19
20
21
oo
Barber, B. (2003). Strong Democracy. London, University of California Press Ltd.
Blake, J. (1999). ‘Overcoming the “Value-Action Gap” in Environmental Policy: tensions
between national policy and local experience’, Local Environment 4(3): 257–278.
Bloomfield, D., K. Collins, C. Fry and R. Munton (2001). ‘Deliberation and inclusion:
pr
22
23 vehicles for increasing trust in UK public governance?’, Environment and Planning C,
19(4), 501–513.
24
Bull, R. (2008a). ‘Social Learning, Environmental Citizenship and the role of Public
25
Engagement: a waste management context’. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of
26
F
Birmingham.
27 Bull, R.J. (2008b). ‘Social Learning, Citizenship, and the Role of Public Engagement: a
28 Waste Management Context’ (PhD thesis). School of Geography, Earth, and Environ-
&
33 Bull, R.J., J. Petts, and J. Evans (2010). ‘The Importance of Context for Effective Public
34 Engagement’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53(8): 991–1009.
35 Davoudi, S. and N. Evans (2005). ‘The challenge of governance in regional waste plan-
36 ning’, Environment and Planning C 23: 493–517.
37 Defra (2005). Securing the Future. London.
Defra (2011). Governing for the Future. London.
38
Dobson, A. (2009). ‘Citizens, citizenship and governance of sustainability’, in Governing
39
Sustainability, W.N. Adger and A. Jordan. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press:
40 125–141.
41 Dryzek, J. (1990). Discursive Democracy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
42 Dryzek, J.S. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Oxford, Oxford University
43 Press.
44 Fiorino, D.J. (1990). ‘Citizen Participation and Environmental Risk: A Survey of Institu-
45 tional Mechanisms’, Science, Technology & Human Values 15(2): 226–243.
f
17
Laird, F.N. (1993). ‘Participatory Analysis, Democracy, and Technological Decision
18
oo
Making’, Science, Technology & Human Values 18(3): 341–361.
Leach, M., I. Scoones, and A. Stirling (2010). Dynamic Sustainabilities: Technology,
Environment, Social Justice. London: Earthscan.
Lorenzoni, I., S. Nicholson-Cole and L. Whitmarsh, (2007). ‘Barriers perceived to engag-
19
20
21
pr
ing with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications’, Global 22
Environmental Change 17: 445–459. 23
Lovell, H., H. Bulkeley and S. Owens (2009). ‘Converging agendas? Energy and climate 24
change policies in the UK’, Environment and Planning C 27: 90–109. 25
Mezirow, J. (1994). ‘Understanding Transformation Theory’, Adult Education Quarterly 26
F
44(4): 222–232.
27
Mezirow, J. (2003). ‘Transformative Learning as Discourse’, Journal of Transformative
28
Education 1(1): 58–63.
&
Moon, J., A. Crane and D. Matten (2003). ‘Can corporations be citizens? Corporate cit- 29
izenship as a metaphor for business participation in society’, Research Paper Series 30
International Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility ISSN 1479–5124 No. 13. 31
32
T
Niemeyer, S., J. Petts and K. Hobson (2005). ‘Rapid Climate Change and Society:
Assessing Response and Thresholds’, Risk Analysis 25(6): 1443–1456. 33
Nonaka, I. (1994). ‘A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation’, Organ- 34
ization Science 5(1): 14–37. 35
Ockwell, D., L. Whitmarsh and S. O’Neill (2009). ‘Reorientating Climate Change Com- 36
munication for Effective Mitigation: Forcing people to be green or fostering grass-roots 37
engagement?’, Science Communication 30: 305–327.
38
Owens, S. and L. Driffill (2008). ‘How to change attitudes and behaviours in the context
39
of energy’, Energy Policy 36: 4412–4418.
Petts, J. (1994). Hampshire County Council Integrated Waste Strategy: Case Study of 40
Community Consultation & Involvement, Loughborough University of Technology: 41
Centre for Hazard & Risk Management. 42
Petts, J. (1995). ‘Waste Management Strategy Development: A Case Study of Com- 43
munity Involvement and Consensus-Building in Hampshire’, Journal of Environmental 44
Planning and Management 38(4): 519–536. 45
f
17
mental Discourse, O. Renn, T. Webler and P. Wiedemann. London, Kluwer Academic
18
19
20
21
Publishers: 35–86.
oo
Webler, T. and S. Tuler (2000). ‘Fairness and competence in citizen participation –
Theoretical reflections from a case study’, Administration & Society 32(5): 566–595.
Webler, T., H. Kastenholz and O. Renn (1995). ‘Public Participation in Impact Assess-
pr
22 ment: A Social Learning Perspective’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 15:
23 443–463.
24
25
26
F
27
28
&
29
30
31
32
T
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
708 14View
Sustainable
publication stats14.indd 219 28/3/13 10:07:54