* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download It took two local `housewives` several years and an inspiring level of
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change feedback wikipedia , lookup
ExxonMobil climate change controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate resilience wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in the United States wikipedia , lookup
Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
German Climate Action Plan 2050 wikipedia , lookup
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
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.