Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion

Abstract

Public participation is commonly advocated in policy responses to climate change. Here we discuss prospects for inclusive approaches to adaptation, drawing particularly on studies of long-term coastal management in the UK and elsewhere. We affirm that public participation is an important normative goal in formulating response to climate change risks, but argue that its practice must learn from existing critiques of participatory processes in other contexts. Involving a wide range of stakeholders in decision-making presents fundamental challenges for climate policy, many of which are embedded in relations of power. In the case of anticipatory responses to climate change, these challenges are magnified because of the long-term and uncertain nature of the problem. Without due consideration of these issues, a tension between principles of public participation and anticipatory adaptation is likely to emerge and may result in an overly managed form of inclusion that is unlikely to satisfy either participatory or instrumental goals. Alternative, more narrowly instrumental, approaches to participation are more likely to succeed in this context, as long as the scope and limitations of public involvement are made explicit from the outset. La participation publique est souvent encouragée pour l'élaboration de réponses aux changements climatiques. Plusieurs perspectives participatives à l'adaptation sont ici discutées, en s'appuyant particulièrement sur des études de gestion côtière à long terme au Royaume-Uni et ailleurs. Nous affirmons que la participation publique satisfait un objectif normatif important dans l'élaboration de réponses aux risques des changements climatiques, mais nous avançons que sa mise en oeuvre doit incorporer les leçons tirées de l'utilisation du processus participatif dans d'autres contextes. La concertation d'un grand éventail d'acteurs dans la prise de décisions représente des défis fondamentaux pour la politique climatique, émanant surtout des rapports de forces. Dans le cas de réponses anticipées aux changements climatiques, ces défis sont d'autant plus importants que l'échelle temporelle et l'incertitude liées au problème augmentent.Si ces questions ne sont pas bien prises en compte, une tension peut apparaître entre les principes de participation publique et l'adaptation anticipée, laquelle pourrait donner lieu à une forme d'inclusion trop étroitement gérée qui ne satisferait ni le but participatif ou instrumental. Des approches alternatives à la participation et plus étroitement instrumentales seraient plus adéquates dans ce contexte, pourvu que la portée et la limite de la participation publique soient rendues explicites dès le départ.

Moving towards inclusive urban adaptation: approaches to integrating community-based adaptation to climate change at city and national scale

“…However, planning as an effective and responsive adaptive mechanism requires sufficient capacity from planners and government institutions, as well as an informed public with the mechanisms to participate effectively, to ensure goals are not maladaptive. Few, Brown, and Tompkins (2007) highlight difficulties of planning for adaptation, where balancing immediate problems against a strategic, longer term perspective can make consensus difficult. Stakeholders may be selectively included or excluded, given the difficulties of defining the 'community' (Few et al, 2007).…”

“…Few, Brown, and Tompkins (2007) highlight difficulties of planning for adaptation, where balancing immediate problems against a strategic, longer term perspective can make consensus difficult. Stakeholders may be selectively included or excluded, given the difficulties of defining the 'community' (Few et al, 2007).…”

Effects of hydrological changes on cooperation in transnational catchments: the case of the Syr Darya

“…Third, efforts to actively involve (local) communities still appear to be uncommon in the studied countries (except in England; Alexander, Priest, Micou, et al, 2016;Mees, Suykens, et al, 2016). Moreover, it remains unclear how much the public are truly able to influence the decision-making process or whether participation exercises only serve to legitimize a decision that has already been made (Alexander et al, 2017;Few et al, 2007). Fourth, the participation may not always be representative of all interests; and finally, legal provisions are in general nonprescriptive.…”

“…Although it is not a strict requirement for compliance with the public participation requirements stemming from the directives, shared decision making has been identified as a good practice in water management in the context of the Common Implementation Strategy (European Commission, 2014). Participation however raises questions about who is a legitimate stakeholder, what entitlement they hold in the decision-making process, whose interests are represented, and who is included or excluded from the process (Few, Brown, & Tompkins, 2007;Sørensen, 2010).…”

REDD+ in West Africa: Politics of Design and Implementation in Ghana and Nigeria

“…As such, on the ground, institutional arrangements are complex and far less inclusive than design documents suggest. Indeed, the constant clash and negotiation of interests among actors in the state and beyond the state reflect a condition marked by "micro-politics, in which actors pursue various overt and covert negotiating strategies to achieve personal ends" [115] In Nigeria for instance, conservation NGOs leading state anti-deforestation efforts continue to appropriate the logging moratorium for the protection of primates and other wildlife; some members of the Anti-Deforestation Task Force often strike illegal deals with loggers and timber merchants; some foresters also used withdrawal of support for REDD+ to defend their professional interests and public rights to forest products. In Ghana, although the Forestry Commission began the REDD+ processes through the FCPF, organised the consultations and led the development of the REDD+ Strategy, the Ministry of Lands (which is its parent institution) also led almost parallel processes of consultations, piloting and other processes under the Forest Investment Project (FIP) of the World Bank.…”