See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265164513

4 Governance, sustainability and deliberation Reflections from a UK case

study of sustainable waste management

Chapter · January 2013

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1065.1527

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.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1
2 14 Governance, sustainability and
3
4 deliberation
5
6 Reflections from a UK case study of
7 sustainable waste management
8
9
10 Richard Bull
11
12
13 Introduction
14
This chapter grounds the current discourse over governance and sustainability by
15
means of a case study that operationalised a partnership approach to governance
16
through deliberative engagement. It applies observations from a specific research

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

27 This chapter begins by reviewing the core terms of sustainability, governance

28 and deliberation. The relevance of the case study is presented in section two,
before discussion of the conceptual framework that explores the link between
&

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.

708 14 Sustainable 14.indd 205 28/3/13 10:07:53

 206   R. Bull
In the UK, sustainable development has been enshrined in policy since 2005 1
through the government’s strategy for sustainable development (Defra 2005). 2
Although the UK coalition government which came into office in 2010 abolished 3
the Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) in April 2011, the core five 4
principles still retain validity. In their last report before being disbanded, the 5
SDC re-­iterated their commitment to the five principles of sustainable develop- 6
ment (Defra 2011): 7
8
1 Living within environmental limits 9
2 Ensuring a strong, healthy and just society 10
3 Achieving a sustainable economy 11
4 Using sound science responsibly 12
5 Promoting good governance 13
14
Parallel to the question of ‘what is sustainable development?’ lies the equally 15
tricky question of how society will change the dominant narrative of neo-­liberal 16

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

this chapter is addressed.

oo
ing good governance, a critical element of sustainable development and to which 19
20
21
pr
22
What is good governance?
23
Davoudi and Evans (2005) define government as ‘the dominance of state power 24
organized through the formal public sector agencies and bureaucratic proce- 25
dures’ (2005: 495). Traditionally, in the UK, the state – that is, central govern- 26
F

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
&

declined as localism increased through successive governments turning to neo-­ 29

liberal tools such as privatisation, de-­regulation and tax cuts to help them meet 30
the challenges of delivering services in the latter half of the twentieth century. 31
Combined with increasing European influence, this process of shifting respons- 32
T

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

708 14 Sustainable 14.indd 206 28/3/13 10:07:53

 Governance, sustainability and deliberation   207
1 Deliberation, learning and behaviour change
2
The basic premise of public engagement is that by involving all those involved
3
in the specific issue, decision-­making is enhanced (Apostolakis and Pickett
4
1998), better decisions are reached (Bloomfield et al. 2001), and decisions gain
5
6 legitimacy (Fiorino 1990). Clearly, defining a better decision is fraught with dif-
7 ficulty: better for whom, or even what? Importantly, the better decision is not
8 one measured only by outcome. Criteria for effective processes draw heavily on
9 discourse theory and notably Habermas (1984), who set out the belief for the
10 force of the better argument and principles of ideal speech and communicative
11 fairness and competence to achieve this goal (Fiorino 1990; Laird 1993; Webler
12 1995).
13 Fairness refers to the opportunity for all interested or affected parties to
14 assume a legitimate role in the decision-­making process – for example, the initial
15 opportunity to attend meetings, to be able to initiate discourse and participate in
16 discussion, and finally to participate in the decision-­making process. Compet-
ence is the degree to which processes reach the best decision possible given what

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

27 change. It is widely accepted, for example, that mere information-­provision is

28 inadequate (Blake 1999), and yet still top-­down communication campaigns are
both commonplace (for example, the UK Government’s Act on CO2 campaign
&

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

708 14 Sustainable 14.indd 207 28/3/13 10:07:53

 208   R. Bull
development (for example, enhancing how people make judgements about what 1
is right and wrong) as critical components. It is claimed that citizens working 2
together in a deliberative context have the potential to ‘mature into responsible 3
democratic citizens’ (Webler et al. 1995: 444) Although this is in the context of 4
the immediate engagement process and the need to solve a shared decision 5
problem, this concept of responsibility does seem to map closely with notions of 6
environmental citizenship that emphasise social responsibilities and duties over 7
and above individual rights (Saiz 2005; Dobson 2009). 8
9
10
Case background: deliberation in sustainable waste
11
management
12
As outlined in the introduction, the context of waste, and especially waste gener- 13
ated by households, provides a window into the wider challenge of environ- 14
mental change and sustainability, not least because the management of household 15
waste is a multi-­actor process. Business, citizens and government (local and 16

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

waste, this chapter conceptualises the process into a framework of governance 27

for learning that conceptualises the three ‘actors’ involved in both the govern- 28
&

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

yield greater learning. 33

In the early 1990s Hampshire was facing a waste crisis. Landfill capacity was 34
rapidly decreasing (limited by the permeable geology of the county), higher reg- 35
ulatory standards were too demanding for the five existing incinerators, and 36
increasing quantities of waste were placing an excessive burden on the existing 37
infrastructure (Petts 1994). In 1992, under contract to Hampshire County 38
Council (HCC), the waste contractor failed in submitting a planning application 39
for a 400,000 tonne per annum EfW plant to handle municipal waste. The 40
County went back to the drawing board and decided to try a different approach. 41
Decisions were made to engage the public in discussion about an appropriate 42
waste strategy to manage household waste in Hampshire. A highly innovative 43
engagement process based on deliberative ideals was designed. This component 44
of the much broader and standard consultation process (including exhibitions, 45

708 14 Sustainable 14.indd 208 28/3/13 10:07:53

 Governance, sustainability and deliberation   209
1 questionnaires, roadshows, media broadcasts and so forth) involved three com-
2 munity advisory fora (CAFs) across the county. The CAFs were facilitated and
3 administered by a team of engagement consultants knowledgeable in waste man-
4 agement, and were independently chaired.
5 Composed of 16–20 people from diverse backgrounds with broad interests
6 (environmental, conservation, parish, business, education, health, community),
7 their purpose was to receive and debate information about Hampshire’s waste
8 problem, to discuss the available options and to submit a report to the County
9 detailing their preferred option. Each CAF met six times, on a monthly basis,
10 between November 1993 and April 1994. Beginning with an explanation of the
11 process and the background to the waste strategy, the meetings progressed to
12 considering the available options for dealing with the waste crisis. Views were
13 sought on whether and how to implement the waste hierarchy (reduce, reuse,
14 recycle, dispose) in the context of Hampshire. Discussions then moved on to
15 consider implementation strategies and reviewed opportunities to involve and
16 inform the wider public.

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

708 14 Sustainable 14.indd 209 28/3/13 10:07:53

 210   R. Bull
Portsmouth was an inquiry required, and here largely because this was the first 1
major decision that the new unitary authority had to take at the time. The plant 2
was granted permission following the inquiry. They went on to use the same 3
engagement process for their proposed EfW facility in Newhaven, East Sussex, 4
even though there was no stated requirement placed upon them to do so in the 5
waste contract (Bull et al. 2010). 6
7
8
A relational framework for learning style
9
10
Introducing the framework and the actors style
11
The central premise is that external influences and relationships affect the 12
primary learning context – that is, the processes of public engagement, such as 13
the Hampshire CAFs and Contact Groups. Understanding what engenders learn- 14
ing within public engagement has, so far, stressed the potential of social inter- 15
action within the processes themselves in order to engender social learning 16
(Webler et al. 1995). Within the organisational learning literature, an over-­

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

worked together in different ways to confront the problem of sustainable waste 27

management. With the goal of learning in the centre, a triangular framework is 28
&

suggested to illustrate the context, influences, and relationships necessary for 29

learning. Local authorities encompass a complex web of relationships estab- 30
lished with the purpose of mediating state power and policy through agencies, 31
procedures, and departments. In England, local authorities can be two-­tier 32
T

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

708 14 Sustainable 14.indd 210 28/3/13 10:07:53

 Governance, sustainability and deliberation   211
1
2 A relational framework for learning
3
4 Partnership
5 Business LAs/
Gov.
6
7
8
9
10 Learning
11

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,

708 14 Sustainable 14.indd 211 28/3/13 10:07:54

 212   R. Bull
learning is located centrally in order to illustrate the external influences upon the 1
process. The arrows suggest these influences, but also stress the two-­way respon- 2
sive effects of the learning process. The case studies clearly show that not only 3
did the actors influence the learning process, but the process also influenced 4
them. Crucially, removing any side of the triangle will have a negative effect 5
upon the potential for learning. The findings of this research suggest that optimal 6
(social and organisational) learning and effective public engagement are both 7
interlinked and dependent upon effective relationships between all three of the 8
actors involved in the waste management cycle. 9
Several established models have been utilized in order to conceptualise this 10
learning. Jack Mezirow’s transformative learning theories (1994, 2003) helped 11
an understanding of the ‘beyond process’ learning of the CAF members in 12
Hampshire. Like many theories around learning through engagement or dis- 13
course, Mezirow focuses on the conditions within the learning environment 14
essential to understanding how to design and manage engagement processes to 15
best enhance learning. Mezirow (2003) speaks of actively managing the process 16

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

significant pressures on OSD placed on them by the timing of the contract 27

resulted in the contact group process being run without the benefit of prior 28
&

engagement or a broader underpinning of information provision (Bull et al. 29

2010). 30
Finally, Nonaka’s (1994) theory of knowledge creation has been useful in 31
highlighting the role of tacit knowledge and relationships, both externally and 32
T

internally, in learning. Notably, there are challenges for multi-­national/multi-­site 33

organisations like Veolia in creating the opportunities for employees to build 34
internal relationships in order to facilitate the sharing of tacit knowledge. This is 35
particularly necessary for organisations such as Veolia and HCC where key indi- 36
viduals or champions possess great knowledge and experience. Unless the latter 37
are proactively or formally captured and shared, ongoing learning will be partial 38
and limited. 39
These different, but complementary, theories blur the boundaries between 40
social and organisational learning. To that end, learning, at an individual or 41
organisational level, within the conceptual framework can be said to be a reflex- 42
ive process dependent upon the participation of all of the relevant actors to facil- 43
itate social interaction and ensure the sharing of knowledge and experience with 44
the potential to lead to a development in behaviour. 45

708 14 Sustainable 14.indd 212 28/3/13 10:07:54

 Governance, sustainability and deliberation   213
1 Partnership
2
The partnership between business and local authorities is intentionally positioned
3
along the top of the relational framework in Figure 14.1 to emphasise its import-
4
ance not just for the management of household waste, but, in this context, for
5
learning. Partnership is central to the waste management sector; Davoudi and
6
Evans (2005) have drawn attention to the effects of the restructuring of society
7
and the role of the state in mediating power through devolving responsibilities to
8
regional agencies and partnerships. A definition of partnership here denotes spe-
9
10 cific characteristics of a working relationship. Frederickson (2007) contrasts
11 partnership with a technocratic client-­contractor approach, characterised by long-
12 ­term contracts with one service provider operating large, centralised facilities.
13 Long-­term private-­finance-initiative (PFI) types of contracts are typically associ-
14 ated with this approach. Project Integra is a PFI-­type contract within which the
15 role of the private waste contractor, HWS, is central. Frederickson (2007) high-
16 lights three ingredients of successful partnerships: emotional commitment, an
agreed shared vision, and common objectives. In Project Integra these have been

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)

708 14 Sustainable 14.indd 213 28/3/13 10:07:54

 214   R. Bull
In the framework for learning, engagement underpins partnership. While part- 1
nership provides the vital relational connection between those responsible for 2
managing waste, without the participation of citizens success is not assured. 3
Engagement is seen here as being distinct from other ways that organisations can 4
consult or communicate with citizens. Engagement implies a responsive relation- 5
ship between the parties involved – one in which different interests, concerns 6
and values are openly acknowledged, discussed and examined. It is far more 7
than one party simply asking for the views of another. The methods of engage- 8
ment may in principle be the same as those of communication or consultation, 9
such as the focus group, but it is the objectives and then the selection of appro- 10
priate method and mode of operation that is key to moving a process to one of 11
engagement. 12
Critically, though, the essence of the CAF engagement process in Hampshire 13
was the quality of deliberation that took place, literally around the table – that is, 14
the dissent, debate and discussion around different viewpoints. It is through this 15
type of deliberative process that the power of the ordinary citizen is utilised 16

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
&

directly linked to the quality of the learning. 29

30
31
The effects of new modes of governance on learning2
32
T

Frederickson (2007) argued that partnership working is capable of achievements 33

that would not be feasible if the individual partners worked in isolation. He is 34
referring to the technical benefits of partnership working between local authori- 35
ties – for example, greater economies of scale concerning recycling collection 36
initiatives and securing contracts for recyclables. This has been the case in 37
Hampshire, where partnership working with all of the local authorities enabled 38
greater efficiencies and sharing of best practice. The integration of Hampshire 39
Waste Services into the partnership allowed for the transfer of their specialist 40
technical knowledge of waste management. The organisational and professional 41
expertise, knowledge, and experience that a company such as Veolia possess are 42
actually embodied in the skills, knowledge and history of individuals. Often this 43
is in the form of tacit knowledge, which is best transferred through people 44
working together in partnerships. 45

708 14 Sustainable 14.indd 214 28/3/13 10:07:54

 Governance, sustainability and deliberation   215
1 Partnerships between business and local authorities provide mutual learning
2 benefits. However, such partnerships have a sphere of influence beyond them-
3 selves. Project Integra provided clear, united governance, de-­politicising the
4 issue of waste – that is, the public viewed no single party as responsible. Instead,
5 a neutral organisation was created. Within the context of discourse theory it
6 could be seen that the notion of a neutral organisation is naïve: in fact, key actors
7 within Project Integra were still driving the engagement between the partici-
8 pants, and a process of antagonism resulted in the hegemonic interpretation of
9 waste management in Hampshire. Of course, Project Integra still drafted the
10 initial waste strategy, even though it was tested and debated through the engage-
11 ment process. Nevertheless, this partnership appeared to create a culture of trust,
12 which enabled the public engagement to function more effectively and increased
13 the opportunity for learning. This is significant given that so often the interests
14 of business (under the influence of market forces) and local authorities (imple-
15 menting policy) are viewed as competing with one another (Forester 1985).
16 In Hampshire, the framework of Project Integra, and the consultation process

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

708 14 Sustainable 14.indd 215 28/3/13 10:07:54

 216   R. Bull
when siting waste facilities is a practical, significant, and tangible commitment 1
to social responsibility. Veolia does not just stop their public engagement once a 2
planning application has been submitted, either: all of the three facilities in 3
Hampshire have liaison groups that meet quarterly throughout the year. These 4
operate on a similar basis to the contact group process, being made up of local 5
people, some of whom were involved in the original process. They are independ- 6
ently chaired and exist to provide an ongoing interface between Veolia and the 7
local community. For example, the Marchwood liaison group had been able to 8
hold HWS to account on the agreed traffic routes, discuss screening arrange- 9
ments, and generally review the ongoing running and performance of the relat- 10
ively new facility. Utilising deliberative processes through the contact group 11
model has the potential to benefit everyone, providing the vital link in the chain 12
between business, local authorities, and citizens. 13
14
15
Final reflections
16

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

national indicators) without engaging citizens in how to do this or partnering 27

with local businesses, often the biggest culprits of CO2 emissions in a city. 28
&

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

708 14 Sustainable 14.indd 216 28/3/13 10:07:54

 Governance, sustainability and deliberation   217
1 work together. Yet, as this case has demonstrated, the power of words is still
2 evident in terms of creating opportunities for learning, environmental citizen-
3 ship, and more effective and accountable government.
4
5
6
Notes
7 1 By ‘waste’ we are referring to household bin waste, waste from civic amenity sites,
8 other household collections and recyclable material from civic amenity sites, all of
which constitutes almost a third of the total controlled waste in England and Wales.
9
2 For the ‘actual’ research findings on the existence of social learning see Bull 2008a,
10 2008b and Bull et al. 2008.
11
12
13 Bibliography
14 Apostolakis, G. and S. Pickett (1998). ‘Deliberation: Integrating Analytical Results into
15 Environmental Decisions Involving Multiple Stakeholders’, Risk Analysis 18(5):
16 621–635.

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-
&

29 mental Sciences, University of Birmingham.

30 Bull, R., J. Petts and J. Evans (2008). ‘Social Learning from Public Engagement: Dream-
31 ing the impossible?’, Journal of Environmental Management and Planning 51(5):
32 703–718.
T

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.

708 14 Sustainable 14.indd 217 28/3/13 10:07:54

 218   R. Bull
Forester, J. (1985). ‘The Policy Analysis-­Critical Theory Affair: Wildavsky and Habermas 1
as Bedfellows?’, in Critical Theory and Public Life. J. Forester. London, MIT: 258–280. 2
Frederickson, J. (2007). The Waste Challenge: The Role of Partnerships. Sustainable 3
Technologies Programme, The Open University. 4
Fulmer, R. and J.B. Keys (1998). ‘A Conversation with Peter Senge’, Organizational
5
Dynamics Autumn: 33–42.
6
Futerra (2005). The Rules of the Game: Principles of Climate Change Communications.
London. 7
Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1: Reason and the 8
Rationalization of Society. Oxford, Blackwell. 9
Hulme, M. (2009). Why We Disagree about Climate Change. Cambridge, Cambridge 10
University Press. 11
Jessop, B. (1999). ‘The Dynamics of Partnership and Governance Failure’, in The New 12
Politics of Local Governance in Britain, G. Stoker. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 13
Jordan, A. (2008). ‘The governance of sustainable development: taking stock and looking 14
forwards’, Environment and Planning C 26: 17–33. 15
Kolb, D., I. Rubin and J.M. McIntyre (1971). Organizational Psychology: an experiential
16
approach to organizational behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.

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

708 14 Sustainable 14.indd 218 28/3/13 10:07:54

 Governance, sustainability and deliberation   219
1 Petts, J. (2001). ‘Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deliberative Processes’, Journal of
2 Environmental Planning and Management 44(2): 207–226.
3 Petts, J. (2006). ‘Managing Public Engagement to Optimize Learning: Reflections from
4 Urban River Restoration’, Human Ecology Review 13(2): 172–181.
Pierre, J. (ed.) (2000). Debating Governance. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
5
Porritt, J. (2006). Capitalism as if the World Matters. London, Earthscan.
6
Saiz, A.V. (2005). ‘Globalisation, cosmopolitanism and ecological citizenship’, Environ-
7 mental Politics 14(2): 163–178.
8 Scott, W.R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems. London,
9 Prentice-­Hall.
10 Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. London, Random House.
11 Tippett, J., B. Searle, E. Mostert, C. Pahl-­Wostl, Y. Rees and D. Tàbara (2005). ‘Social
12 learning in public participation in river basin management – early findings from Har-
13 moniCOP European case studies’, Environmental Science & Policy 8: 287–299.
14 WCED (1987). Our Common Future – The Brundtland Report (World Commission on
15 Environment and Development). Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Webler, T. (1995). ‘ “Right” Discourse in Citizen Participation: An Evaluative Yardstick’,
16
Fairness & Competence in Citizen Participation: Evaluating Models for Environ-

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