Fitness for Purpose: English Nature's Use of Deliberative And

Fitness For Purpose: English Nature’s Use of Deliberative and Inclusionary Processes in the Delivery of Nature Conservation Policy. Katharine Louise Studd Department of Geography University College London. Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of PhD. University of London, 2003. ProQuest Number: U643316 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest U643316 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Abstract The thesis explores the use of deliberative and inclusionary processes (DIPs) in nature conservation policy, using England’s statutory nature conservation advisor, English Nature, as the focus. While there is increasing pressure for publicly-funded organisations such as EN to incorporate DIPs into their operations, there is litde understanding within these organisations of how to apply these approaches in a way that is compatible with their responsibilities. The concept of Fitness for Purpose is presented as a structuring framework to explore English Nature’s use of DIPs in the context of its statutory responsibilities and institutionalised approaches, as well as the changing socio-political and conservation agendas in which the organisation is situated. A case study of the River Avon is used to explore the influences of the institutional, organisational and local situational contexts on the design and management of a DIP to develop a river conservation strategy and deliver the Habitats Directive. Despite the rhetoric of partnership and community involvement within EN ’s activities, the use of DIPs has been limited. An interview-based analysis of English Nature as an organisation identifies cultural barriers to the institutionalisation of DIPs. Nevertheless, research findings indicate that a transition is in progress within English Nature towards a culture that places greater emphasis on creative and proactive stakeholder engagement. This is in part a response to opportunities associated with ‘deliberately inclusionary’ policy agendas such as quality of life to integrate biodiversity objectives into wider policy arenas. However, the use of DIPs in delivering biodiversity targets and securing the management of designated sites is constrained by the influence of top-down performance targets and the ‘deliberately exclusionary’ nature of conservation legislation. The research questions the extent to which the use of DIPs in the delivery of nature conservation policy can ever meet normative standards of best practice in deliberation and inclusion. Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank Professor Richard Munton for the encouragement and advice he has given me during the production of this thesis. Thank you also to members of ESRU, particularly Professor Jacquie Burgess, Dr. Judy Clark, and Professor Carolyn Harrison, whose collaboration, ideas and interest in my work have been hugely helpful and inspiring over the past four years. My time at UCL would not have been the same without the support and inspiration provided by other postgraduates in the Geography Department, particularly their willingness to help put a bad day behind you. Special thanks to Jason Lim, Sam Gardner, Jason Chilvers, Rob Doubleday, Rosie Day and B Purvis. The support I have received from English Nature is gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks to Jonathan Burney for his advice and enthusiasm, particularly during my time in Peterborough. My involvement in the Avon River Conservation Strategy would not have been possible without the support of David Withrington, Gareth Morgan and Dagmar Junghanns. And I should probably apologise to Jenny Wheeldon for making the production of a strategy a more complex and stressful task than she thought when she accepted the job as Project Officer. Sorry! But thankyou - Jenny and Dagmar - for accommodating me and my ideas. Your wiUingness and ability to step back and offer your perceptive and honest observations has been invaluable. The success of the strategy was down to the hard work, enthusiasm and abilities of you both. Thankyou to aU those people who have provided words of wisdom, support and lots of fun, at aU the right times and in aU the right doses over the last four years. Lots of love and thanks to Lucy, Sarah, Nicky, Ruth and Liz. To Rachel, you inspire me, but maybe you shouldn’t have reminded me that this is aU your fault? And to Mum and Dad, you’ve put up with the ups and downs with unconditional love and faith, and ubiquitous supplies of tea and chocolate. Thankyou. And finally, Tom, despite infecting me with an incurable case of fujigraffing, you know I couldn’t have done this without you. Thankyou for your love, patience and for having the ability to still make me laugh despite it all. Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction 14 1.1. Research Rationale and Context 14 1.2. Introducing English Nature 17 1.3. Research Themes and Questions 20 1.4. Thesis Outline 24 Chapter 2. Deliberative and Inclusionary Processes: 27 Theory & Reality Introduction 27 2.1. The Dehberative Turn in Policy-making 28 2 . 1. 1 . The Shift from Government to Governance 28 2. 1.2. Environmental Problems as Classic Governance Issues 31 2.1.3. Sustainable Development 33 2.1.4. Democratising the Policy Process 34 2.1.5. Calls for Deliberative Democracy. 38 2.2 Introducing Deliberative and Inclusionary Processes (DIPs) 39 2.2. 1. Claimed Benefits of DIPs 39 2.2.2. Definitions of Participation and DIPs 41 2.3. Applying the Principles of Deliberation and Inclusion 45 2.3.1. Implementing DIPs — what is best practice? 47 (i) deliberation 47 (ii) inclusion 48 (hi) The Relationship between Process and Outcome 49 (iv) Consensus 49 2.3.2. Observations on the use of DIPs in UK Public Policy 50 2.4. Institutionalising Participation 52 2.4.1. Organisations and Institutions 53 2.4.2. The Importance of Organisational Culture to Institutionalising 53 Participation 2.4.3. Institutional Barriers to DIPs 55 Conclusions 58 Chapter 3. Research Approach & Methodology. Investigating 59 Fitness for Purpose Introduction 59 3.1. Fitness for Purpose - a framework for exploring the influence 60 of context in DIPs. 3.1.1. Approaches to Researching DIPs 60 3.1.2. Introducing Fitness for Purpose 61 3.1.3. Researching Fitness for Purpose 64 (i) Top-down: An institutional analysis of English Nature 64 (ii) Analysing fitness for purpose in a particular case situation 65 (iii) Linking the institutional and case study analyses. 66 3.2. Methodological Issues and Approaches 67 3.2.1. The CASE Studentship. 68 3.2.2. Action Research. 71 3.2.3. Case Study Research. 72 3.3. Fieldwork Strategy: Methods and Analysis 74 3.3.1. Fieldwork Strategy - an overview 74 3.3.2. Investigating English Nature - Organisational Analysis 76 (i) Preliminary interviews and discussions 76 (ii) Semi-structured interviews 77 (iii) Informal discussions 81 (iv) Document analysis 82 3.3.3. Analysis 83 Conclusions 84 Chapter 4. Introducing English Nature: 85 Institutional Influences on Approaches to Nature Conservation in England. Introduction 85 4.1. Introducing the Culture of English Nature: Responsibilities, 86 Structure and Approaches to Nature Conservation 4.1.1. The Remit and Responsibilities of English Nature 86 4.1.2. Introducing English Nature’s Structure 89 4.1.3. A Procedural View of English Nature - Institutionalised 98 Approaches to Nature Conservation. (i) An overview of EN’s approaches to nature conservation 98 (ii) English Nature’s institutionalised nature 99 (iii) The protected areas approach 101 (iv) Legislation and the voluntary principle 102 4.1.4. Introducing EN ’s Stakeholders 104 4.2. Influences on the Organisation: Creating the Institutional 108 Conditions for DIPs 4.2.1. Drivers from a Socio-political and Governmental Perspective 109 4.2.2. The Evolving Nature Conservation Agenda 112 (i) Changing values and knowledges in nature conservation 112 (ii) More participatory protected area management 114 (iii) Beyond designated sites — tackling the geographical & cultural 116 marginalisation of nature 4.3. The Effect of these Drivers on English Nature’s Approaches 117 and Priorities for Nature Conservation Conclusions 122 Chapter 5. English Nature’s Response to the Participation 124 Agenda, 1991-2002. Introduction 124 5.1. Organisational Responses to Drivers for Greater 125 Participation: Key Developments within English Nature since 1991. 5.1.1. Community Involvement: The Community Involvement Key 127 Initiative 1994-1996 and the Biodiversity Action Plan. 5.1.2. Stakeholder Participation and Partnership-based Approaches. 1992- 130 1999. 5.1.3. The Use of DIPs within EN 132 5.1.4. New Initiatives and New Opportunities for DIPs? 1999-2002. 135 5.2. Examining Staff Attitudes towards DIPs 137 5.2.1. Objectives for using DIPs 137 (i) More effective communication and productive stakeholder 138 relationships (ii) Effective decision-making 139 (iii) Effective policy delivery 139 5.2.2. Attitudes to Inclusion 140 5.3. Structures, Priorities and Institutionalised Procedures. 143 Organisational culture and the use of DIPs in EN 5.3.1. The Low Priority of DIPs in an Outcome-oriented, Target-driven 143 Culture 5.3.2. A ‘Time-Poor’ Organisation 146 5.3.3. A Lack of Emphasis on Process within the Organisation 147 5.3.4. An Instrumental, Not a People-first Approach 148 5.3.5. Reflective Practitioners? 149 5.3.6. A Reflective Organisation? 151 Conclusions 154 Chapter 6. Exploring Fitness for Purpose at a Local Level: 156 Introducing the Case Study Introduction 156 6.1.

Load more