Download It took two local `housewives` several years and an inspiring level of

Project Summary: A Climate for Change on the Manhood Peninsula
It took two local residents several years and an inspiring level of personal commitment to
persuade local agencies that rising sea levels and changing weather patterns would
significantly impact the vulnerable peninsula. After raising public awareness of the issues, the
two residents raised money to organise an international planning workshop, which took
place in 2001 with leading coastal, planning and environmental experts from the Netherlands
and UK. Recommendations for improved cooperation and communication between
responsible bodies and the local communities, and support from local residents and agencies
led to the formation of the Manhood Peninsula Partnership.
Alongside a second independent volunteer, one of the original residents continues to drive
the partnership as a Project Leader. This independent voice is supported by an independent
Chair, and more formalised community representation from elected members of the
peninsula’s parish, town, district and county councils. Statutory bodies and agencies with
officer involvement in the partnership are: West Sussex County Council, Chichester District
Council, Chichester Harbour Conservancy, the Environment Agency, Natural England, the
National Trust (joined 2005), and the RSPB (joined 2006).
Through its participation in the ESPACE partnership West Sussex County Council provided
the link for the partnership to deliver a pilot project for integrated planning as a
demonstration for ESPACE. The principal difference between the Manhood Peninsula
project and others in the European partnership was that it was intended to be “community
led”.
The Climate for Change project has two central objectives; to develop a solutions based
response to the impact of climate change by setting out locally agreed adaptation action
plans; and to provide a channel for influencing future planning and decision-making to
account for the effects of climate change locally. The timetable set out for the development
of the Chichester District Local Development Framework, and the secretariat role provided
by Chichester District staff to the MPP, has provided excellent opportunities for integrating
the outcomes of the Climate for Change work into current and future local planning. The
involvement of officers and councillors in the dialogue process, in addition to the
submissions made through the Climate for Change project and the MPP, has been successful
in influencing the content of the Submission Core Strategy.
The project was launched on June 8th 2004, and developed through a public programme of
workshops during the autumn of 2004. Workshop outputs were refined by action planning
groups in late spring 2005, and, in response to a further public consultation phase in the
early autumn of 2005, the action plan was finalised in November 2005. Over 50% of those
participating in the process have been individual residents, local group representatives or
peninsula parish councillors.
By engaging the public in dialogue with statutory agencies and local organisations, to inform
and influence decision-making processes, the project aimed to ensure that local adaptation
strategies are relevant, suitable and accepted. The dialogue approach provided the
opportunity for direct communication between those who decide and those who are
affected by decisions and, by producing outputs that have been formed cooperatively, a
common agenda has emerged.
June Launch & Autumn Workshop Attendees 2004
MPP Organisation (non-LA)
District / County Councillor
Business
Local Authority Officer
Individual Resident
Local Group
Parish Council Rep
ESPACE partner
Other
During the launch event, a workshop based SWOT analysis of the Manhood Peninsula was
undertaken to generate baseline information for the project, in particular to identify key
topics relating to climate change that needed further exploration. As part of this process
the results of the analysis were grouped under topic headings. Subsequent consideration of
the information led to the identification of 4 topic workshops, a common cross-cutting issue
and the need for an integration workshop. Background papers, based on the baseline
information generated at the launch event, were prepared for all workshops. These were
intended to provide those with an interest in participating with a common level of locally
relevant, topic specific information regarding climate change impacts, adaptation, and spatial
planning.
The workshops were designed and facilitated "... to recognise participants as more than just
sources from which information could be extracted, as key players in the collective solutions
to the challenge" (FUTERRA, Jan 05). An iterative approach was adopted, continually
revising the workshop plan based on the experiences and feedback from each session,
allowing participants to influence the process and approach as well as the content and
outcomes.
At each workshop participants were first given the chance to alter the background paper,
discarding those issues that they felt were unimportant, readjusting priorities and using their
own knowledge and experience to alter or add in additional concerns and issues. This
process generated a sense of ownership amongst the participants who were then given the
chance to prioritise the top three issues they wish to explore in more detail. The process
was democratic but inclusive.
A technique called future-basing was introduced to overcome the ‘here and now’ focus of
the first workshop. The strength of future-basing is its capacity to generate a picture of a
successful future and identify the key steps required to get there. The technique focuses on
successes that have been achieved rather than challenges to be overcome. As such the
technique sparks creative thinking and seeks to generate a sense of common purpose
between the people involved. Two approaches were used in order to a) keep returning
participants stimulated, and b) to test the suitability of different approaches. An ‘options for
action’ session then focused on identifying various approaches to achieving a vision, and
explored in further detail the pros and cons of particular approaches in terms of its longterm resilience, cost, and impact.
Comparative feedback from the Climate for Change on the Manhood Peninsula Topic
Workshop Series:
% Participant Response
D) Opportunity to Contribute
60
50
L&R
40
Economy
30
Built Env
20
Natural Env
I&P
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
1= very limited, 5= plenty of opportunity
The integration workshop was designed to ensure a joined up approach to planning and
visioning on the Manhood Peninsula, bringing together the results of topic workshops in a
coherent manner to avoid conflicting outcomes.
Feedback from the final Integration and Planning workshop indicating perceived success in
achieving integrated outcomes:
% Participant Response
A) Integrated Outcomes
50
40
30
I&P
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
1= fragmented, 5= well integrated outcomes
In this workshop the focus was on exploring the ‘Options for Action’. Scenarios were used
to focus participant’s minds on different possible adaptive challenges for the Peninsula. They
were derived from two key variables, whether climate change related sea level rise is high
(worst case scenario) or low (an effective emissions reduction scenario), and whether
coastal management solutions tend towards hard engineered defences or coastal
realignment. These two variables gave four clear scenarios for the group to explore.
Four self selecting groups, one for each scenario, were asked to prioritise the top 10 options
for action within the context of their particular scenario. Participants were given time to use
large maps of the area to physically explore and identify the conflicts between different land-
use claims and the planning process. This approach enabled participants to gain the skills and
understanding to make sensible, informed decisions on locally appropriate adaptive
responses to climate change impact. Collation and scoring of the top 10 priorities for each
of the scenarios produced a ranked list of core areas for action that applied across the
scenarios, and this concluded the workshop phase.
In response to feedback from workshop participants, smaller groups with both local and
technical representation undertook the action planning. Themes were identified from the
‘ranked list’ of core areas for action and these created the framework for action planning.
During the spring of 2005, outcomes from the whole workshop programme were drawn
together under the action planning themes. Those participating in the action planning
sessions were given the brief to turn the visions, options for action, and core components
identified during the autumn 2004 workshops (the ‘what’) into action programmes (the
‘how’). Action planning focussed on short-medium term actions that ensure that the
peninsula is prepared for change, or that influence the local planning authority to ensure that
climate change is integrated into spatial development policies and sustainability assessments.
Action planning began by considering the workshop outcomes relevant to Water
Management, the top ranked issue. By starting the action planning phase with water
management, all subsequent sessions considered the relevant actions arising from this and
water issues became embedded at the heart of the action planning process. The final session
on Planning and Development responded to actions identified during all the previous
sessions, as well as workshop outputs, ensuring that outputs from this session integrated the
multiple spatial claims on the Manhood Peninsula.
A consultation phase aimed to gather additional feedback from those who participated in
earlier stages of the project, and others. The action planning phase produced a list of 95
actions, supported by 10 key messages and communication methods. The consultation draft
action plan presented the actions in a more coherent format, identifying 6 core action
programmes, each made up of a number of ‘project deliverables’ under which a number of
actions were packaged. By drawing together complementary and / or overlapping actions
under a common objective an integrated response to the challenges and opportunities of
climate change on the Manhood Peninsula was developed. The consultation also sought to
identify any gaps in the action programmes and to undertake a community based
prioritisation of the project deliverables.
The content of the plan emerged from the input of both ‘expert professionals’ and ‘local
experts’, and this collaboration has been central to the project. The Climate for Change
project and the MPP recognised that it was essential to maintain the relationships developed
with the wider community on the Manhood Peninsula. Structures for managing and
delivering the action programmes have been designed to ensure continued transparency and
accountability to the public. To enable effective management of the action plan delivery
Implementation Management Teams (IMTs) for each programme have been created.
Including both citizen and expert representation on the teams ensures that the dialogue
developed through the engagement process is sustained and that climate change adaptation
on the peninsula continues to be ‘relevant, accepted and sustainable’.
The MPP provides a collaborative framework for the future management of the peninsula
and the MPP will retain overall responsibility for the co-ordination and facilitation of a
programme of projects, as developed through the Climate for Change project. Each
‘Implementation Management Team’ (IMT) reports to the MPP through the team leader, an
MPP member. Following the initial community steer derived from the prioritisation of
project deliverables, the team will provide a technical & locally appropriate steer for its
specific programme. The IMT has the authority to further prioritise between actions,
making informed choices as to the appropriate action(s) to best achieve the delivery
objective. The IMT is responsible for maintaining relationships with external bodies that are
involved in delivering actions that correspond to that action programme. The IMT may also,
in the short term, develop current actions and /or identify new appropriate actions or
opportunities to meet a project deliverable.
Adapting to climate change is an ongoing process. Actions may be subject to change with
emerging knowledge, therefore the management and review of the action programmes
needs to be sustainable. The action plan is considered to be a ’working’ document, and a
rigorous review and updating process is incorporated into the management of the plan. A
public review of the plan will be conducted by the MPP every 18 months. This review will
provide an opportunity to report progress to the public; present an update of climate
change science and adaptation practices; engage the public in an assessment of the current
action plan, with a view to re-prioritising, amending and adding emergent actions.
Representatives of the wider community will be able to put themselves forward to sit on
IMT’s and others may wish to stand down. The first review will include an evaluation of the
Climate for Change project.
West Sussex County Council and the MPP recognise that whilst creating public awareness
and fostering public engagement in action planning has been an extended process, it will
ultimately be more effective in the long-term. Programmes are more likely to succeed if all
those who work and live in the area are committed to the same objectives. Beyond the
timescale of the Climate for Change project the MPP will continue to act as a neutral forum
for statutory bodies, agencies and communities to work together for the good of the
peninsula, and continue to deliver the adaptation action plan.