There is a widespread acknowledgement that urban · Web viewSource: Muir and Rance (1995:...

A Collaborative Partnership Approach

to Integrated Waterside Revitalisation:

The Experience of the Mersey Basin Campaign,

the North West of England

Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the University of Liverpool

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

By Joon Sik Kim

December 2001

i

To my family

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thank you, Peter.

iii

ABSTRACT

Joon S. Kim

Department of Civic Design, University of Liverpool, Abercromby Square, Liverpool,

L69 3BX, UK

<<To review later>>

The emergence of a new model of governance, bringing together governmental and

non-governmental forces to achieve the policy goal, calls for a novel form of

partnership driven by interdependence and networking between a range of actors.

Although this approach is often described as ‘collaborative planning’, there is

widespread acknowledgement that the ‘new’ practice has operational difficulties. This

paper draws on the results of a research project investigating how a concrete example

of collaborative partnerships, the Mersey Basin Campaign in North West of England,

can operate for integrated waterside revitalisation.

The Mersey Basin Campaign is a government-sponsored 25-year initiative that aims

to improve water quality and the waterside environments of the Mersey Basin, a

heavily urbanised area containing the two conurbations of Merseyside and Greater

Manchester. In Australia, 1999, the Campaign won the Inaugural River Prize as the

World’s best river-management initiative by far of environmental co-operation

between all partners. From the experience of the Campaign, our research identified

three key aspects of integrated waterside revitalisation; consensus building,

facilitation and open participation. In carrying out the study, six detailed case studies

within the Campaign’s activities have been investigated in the context of three key

aspects. About 40 semi-structured interviews have been undertaken, and over 25

meetings and field works have been observed.

Our research shows having shared ownership of the partnership, which can be

motivated from feelings of achievements among member representatives are

fundamental for effective partnership service delivery. It has been seen that once the

representatives have ownership of the partnership, they act as a catalyst to stimulate

and motivate action from their parent organisations.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: 1INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1

1.1 RESEARCH CONTEXT.......................................................................................................................21.2 RESEARCH AIM AND OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................41.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................5

1.3.1 Case Study as a Research Strategy.........................................................................................51.3.2 Selecting the Case Study.........................................................................................................7

1.4 THE STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS.....................................................................................................7

CHAPTER TWO: GOVERNANCE ISSUES IN WATERSIDE REVITALISATION....................11

2.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................122.2 CONCEPTUALISING GOVERNANCE.................................................................................................12

2.2.1 Characteristics of Governance..............................................................................................132.2.2 Typology of Governance.......................................................................................................14

HIGH....................................................................................................................................................172.3 GOVERNANCE IN WATERSIDE REVITALISATION...........................................................................20

2.3.1 Changing of Governance in Waterside Management...........................................................202.3.2 From Government towards Governance...............................................................................26

2.4 IMPLEMENTING WATERSIDE REVITALISATION..............................................................................272.4.1 Principles for Waterside Revitalisation................................................................................272.4.2 Institutional Arrangement for Waterside Revitalisation.......................................................31

2.5 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................35

CHAPTER THREE: COLLABORATIVE PLANNING AND PARTNERSHIP INSTRUMENTS.................................................................................................................................................................37

3.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................383.2 COLLABORATIVE PLANNING THEORY...........................................................................................38

3.2.1 Background to Collaborative Planning Theory....................................................................383.2.2 The Concept of Collaborative Planning................................................................................393.2.3 Collaborative Planning in Practice......................................................................................44New Partnerships...........................................................................................................................47

3.3 INSTRUMENT FOR COLLABORATIVE PLANNING: PARTNERSHIPS..................................................483.3.1 Partnerships towards Collaborative Planning.....................................................................483.3.2 Conceptualising Partnerships...............................................................................................543.3.3 A Life Cycle of Partnerships.................................................................................................59

3.4 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................63

CHAPTER FOUR:DESIGNING AN INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT FOR INTEGRATED WATERSIDE REVITALISATION.....................................................................................................65

4.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................664.2 ENGAGING COLLABORATIVE PLANNING TO WATERSIDE REVITALISATION..................................67

4.2.1 Advantages in the Context of Waterside Revitalisation........................................................674.2.2 Limitations in the Context of Waterside Revitalisation.........................................................68

4.3 DESIGNING A COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP FOR REVITALISING WATERSIDES.........................694.3.1 Pre-partnership Collaboration.............................................................................................694.3.2 Collaborative Partnership Creation and Consolidation.......................................................704.3.3 Collaborative Partnership Programme Delivery..................................................................784.3.4 Collaborative Partnership Termination or Succession.........................................................89

4.4 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................89

CHAPTER FIVE:CASE STUDY: THE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN........................................91

5.1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................925.2 CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................92

5.2.1 Research Methodology..........................................................................................................925.2.2 Selection of the Case Study...................................................................................................95

5.3 BACKGROUND TO THE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN.....................................................................1005.3.1 The Mersey Basin................................................................................................................100

v

5.3.2 The Idea of the Mersey Basin Campaign............................................................................1025.4 THE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN..................................................................................................103

5.4.1 The Objectives of the Mersey Basin Campaign..................................................................1045.4.2 Organisational Structure of the Mersey Basin Campaign..................................................1055.4.3 Scope of Action in the Mersey Basin Campaign.................................................................112

5.5 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................116

CHAPTER 6: INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS OFTHE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN...............................................................................................................................................................117

6.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1186.2 PRE-PARTNERSHIP COLLABORATION STAGE...............................................................................118

6.2.1 Building common purpose...................................................................................................1196.2.2 Identifying Key Stakeholders...............................................................................................120

6.3 PARTNERSHIP CREATION AND CONSOLIDATION.........................................................................1216.3.1 Designing Facilitating Bodies: Flexibility..........................................................................1226.3.2 Attracting Formal Members of the Campaign....................................................................1246.3.3 Attracting Informal Members of the Campaign..................................................................128

6.4 PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME DELIVERY STAGE...........................................................................1336.4.1 Network-oriented Service Delivery.....................................................................................1336.4.2 Outcomes of the Collaborative Approach...........................................................................137

6.7 PARTNERSHIP TERMINATION OR SUCCESSION STAGE.................................................................1446.8 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................145

CHAPTER SEVEN: THE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN IN PRACTICE..................................147

7.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................1487.2 CONSENSUS BUILDING IN PRACTICE...........................................................................................148

7.2.1 The Mersey Estuary Management Project..........................................................................1497.2.2 The Campaign Council and Manifesto Pledge Groups......................................................1657.2.3 Summary of Consensus Building Process...........................................................................172

7.3 FACILITATION IN PRACTICE.........................................................................................................1737.3.1 The Water Mark Scheme.....................................................................................................1747.3.2 The Showricks Bridge Project.............................................................................................1857.3.3 Summary of Facilitation......................................................................................................190

7.4 OPEN PARTICIPATION IN PRACTICE.............................................................................................1907.4.1 The Mersey Basin Weekends...............................................................................................1917.4.2 Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly Surveys.....................................................................1987.4.3 Summary of Open Participation..........................................................................................203

7.5 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................203

CHAPTER EIGHT:CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................205

8.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................2068.2 RESEARCH SUMMARY.................................................................................................................2068.3. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND EVALUATION OF THE RESEARCH.....................................................208

8.3.1 Objective One: Conceptualisation......................................................................................2098.3.2 Objective Two: Real-life Context........................................................................................2128.3.3 Objective Three: Guidelines................................................................................................2148.3.4 Objective Four: Applicability..............................................................................................220

8.4 A COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP RESEARCH AGENDA.............................................................2228.4.1 Towards Accountable Outcomes of Collaborative Efforts..................................................2228.4.2 Towards a Comparative Research......................................................................................2248.4.3 Towards a Future Collaborative Practice..........................................................................225

8.5 FINAL CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................226

BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................228

APPENDIX ONE: CASE STUDY ACTIVITY.................................................................................241

APPENDIX TWO:ANALYSIS OF THE MERSEY BASIN WEEKENDS....................................247

Appendix Three: Publications................................................................................................................271

vi

List of Tables

Table 1.0.1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Case Studies.....................................6Table 2.0.1 Modes of Governance: Markets, Hierarchies and Networks.................17Table 2.0.2 Varieties of Network................................................................................19Table 2.0.3 Prioritising the Issues of Water-based Schemes.....................................20Table 2.0.4 The Trend of Governance in the UK.......................................................21Table 0.5 Water Use Categories in Catchment Planning............................................32Table 3.0.1 The Main Components of a Collaborative Planning..............................40Table 3.0.2 Potential Outcomes of Consensus Building............................................47Table 3.0.3 The Features of Networks and Partnerships..........................................49Table 3.0.4 A Typology of Partnership: The Work of Nick Bailey...........................57Table 3.0.5 Networks, Markets and Hierarchies in a Partnership Life Cycle..........60Table 4.0.1 Key Aspects of Waterside Revitalisation.................................................82Table 4.0.2 Criteria for Evaluating Consensus Building..........................................87Table 5.0.1 The Choice of Case Studies for Service Delivery Practice...........................100Table 5.0.2 NWC Water Quality Classifications......................................................104Table 5.0.3 The Changes of the Campaign Structure, 1982-2000..........................105Table 6.0.1 The Mersey Basin Trust Membership: 1991 -1999..............................128Table 7.0.1 Mersey Estuary Management Plan, Work Programme 1992-1995.....153Table 7.0.2 A Comparison Between the MEMP and the MEAP.............................155Table 5.0.3 Pledge Groups of the Campaign............................................................167Table 7.0.4 Number of Events in the Mersey Basin Campaign 1997-1999............191Table 7.0.5 Successive Participation in the Mersey Basin Weekends, 1997-1999. 193Table 7.0.6 Summary of the Kingfisher Survey Results..........................................199Table 7.7 Comparison in Numbers of Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly

Sightings in the 1998 Survey............................................................................200

viii

List of Figures

Figure 1.0.1 The Structure of the Thesis.....................................................................8Figure 2.0.1 Types of Planning Style.........................................................................15Figure 2.0.2 From Government Towards Governance.............................................26Figure 2.0.3 An Ecosystem Approach to Managing Human Activities....................28Figure 2.0.4 Ecosystem and Principles for Waterside Revitalisation.......................31Figure 3.0.1 A Common Structure of Partnerships...................................................50Figure 3.0.2 A Concept of Partnership: Markets, Hierarchies and Networks.........56Figure 4.0.1 Involving Local Communities...............................................................76Figure 4.0.2 Involving Local Communities: Collaborative Partnerships at Local

Level.....................................................................................................................77Figure4.0.3 An Institutional Design for Collaborative Planning.............................80Figure 4.0.4 A Mechanism of Collaborative Partnership Service Delivery..............83Figure 5.0.1 Research Methodology: Interview Structure........................................93Figure 5.0.2 The Author’s Case Study Activity Featured in one of the Campaign’s

Publications.........................................................................................................94Figure 5.0.3 The Mersey Basin..................................................................................96Figure 5.0.4 Selecting the Six Case Studies for Service Delivery Practice...............98Figure 5.0.5 The Structure of Mersey Basin Campaign: 1992-2001......................106Figure 5.0.6 Locations of the River Valley Initiatives.............................................110Figure 5.0.7 Geographically-Tiered Approach to River Management...................111Figure 5.0.8 Mersey Basin: Water Quality 1985-2000............................................113Figure 5.0.9 Mersey Estuary: Biochemical Oxygen Demand 1972-1996...............113Figure 5.0.10 Water Quality Improvements: the River Roch..................................114Figure 5.0.11 Water Quality Improvements: the River Glaze.................................114Figure 6.0.1 The Community Context of the Mersey Basin Campaign..................131Figure 6.0.2 A Partner’s Advertisement on Water Quality Improvement, NWW. .131Figure 6.0.3 The Relationship Between Water Quality and Economic Regeneration

............................................................................................................................141Figure 7.0.1 The Area Covered by the Mersey Strategy..........................................150Figure 7.0.2 The Organisational Structure of the Mersey Strategy........................151Figure 7.0.3 Diverse Areas of Interest in the Mersey Estuary................................159Figure 7.0.4 An Example of the Water Mark Scheme............................................174Figure 7.0.5 Operational Process of the Water Mark.............................................176Figure 6.0.6 Footpath Network of West Lancashire and Sefton............................185Figure 7.0.7 Publication Highlighting the Missing Link of Showrick’sBridge.....186Figure 8.0.1 Collaborative Partnership Service Delivery: Top-down and Bottom-up

............................................................................................................................219Figure 8.2 The Value of Community Empowerment: Hypothetical Framework...224

ix

Chapter One: Introduction

Chapter One:

Introduction

1


1.1 Research Context

Governance in modern society needs to bring together governmental and non-

governmental forces to achieve the economic and social goals (Stoker, 1997). There is

widespread acknowledgement that urban problems are no longer solvable by

traditional state intervention and agencies. This changed the traditional image of

government towards an enabler, which acts as a catalytic agent facilitating provision

and action by and through others. The changing of social-political environment forces

the pattern of government to the new form of governance that is often described as

‘collaborative planning’. Patsy Healey (1997) sets out five parameters of systematic

institutional design for a collaborative form of policy development and delivery.

These are to:

recognise the range and variety of stakeholders;

spread power from the agencies of government;

provide opportunities for informal invention and for local initiatives;

foster the inclusion of all members of political communities; and

be continually and openly accountable.

Collaborative planning has, however, raised issues about how common values can be

forged and applied in a real-life context, especially in the face of political inequality

stands, due to its idealism and utopianism (Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger, 1998).

Although such ideas are now widely accepted, there is widespread acknowledgement

that the ‘new’ practice has operational difficulties. This is because the novel form of

planning practice requires a transformation of traditional compartmentalised working

practices and the engagement of a wider range of players including those who were

not directly involved in traditional practice.

While great emphasis has been laid on the importance of collaboration for the

delivery of policy goals, there has been little analysis or evaluation of the applicability

of theory and principles of collaborative planning to a real-life context. The emphasis

on consensus building and conflict resolution has been particularly noticeable in the

current research stream of collaborative planning. This is an attempt to develop an

empirical framework to implement collaborative effort in the practice of planning (see

particularly Susskind et al. (1999b)). Not surprisingly, those studies deal with tensions

and conflicts that motivate stakeholders to participate to protect and secure their

2


resources and interests. Then, another question needs to be asked. What if there is no

obvious tension to generate a strong motivation among stakeholders but the political

goal can be only achieved by collaborative efforts?

Bearing this question in mind, the central aim of this thesis is to investigate how a

collaborative approach can be applied to the practice of planning, in particular a

process of integrated waterside revitalisation. This research examines a concrete

example of integrated waterside revitalisation in the UK. Planning practice engages

conflicting parties in the face of inequalities of power and political voice. The issues

of sustainable development in the political arena of planning practice in the UK are

widely acknowledged but not all stakeholders are willing to spend their extra time,

effort and money. Thus, it is difficult to generate strong motivation among

stakeholders.

The practice of integrated waterside revitalisation requires collaborative planning

involving a significant number of stakeholders; no single organisation can solve the

problems of ecosystem management unilaterally. This thesis focused on the practice

of waterside revitalisation. This was an attempt to promote more focused efforts

rather than to cover wider-ranging planning practice, as a certain geographical

boundary, such as a river basin, helped focus on particular issues and emphasised on

area-based targets.

The concept of collaborative planning is now firmly on the agenda of integrated

waterside revitalisation. Throughout the history of waterside management, the

complexities of waterside issues and conflicts between diverse interests have been

significant limitations to the achievement. Approaching the development of integrated

policies for waterside management, the London Rivers Association (London Rivers

Association, 2000) argues that there is the need to promote a new Planning Policy

Guidance Note ‘Blue Belts’ (as a watery equivalent to green belts) for better

protection and use of watersides, and integration of complexity of the water space

planning. However, the DETR points out that the new PPG on watersides may cause

additional conflicts among a considerable number of existing plans, strategies and

guidance of waterside management (Harfield, 2000).

Viewed from an institutional perspective, there is also a concerted effort among

planning academics to develop work supportive of practitioners. This has shaped the

3


nature of the institutional approach such as Healey’s collaborative planning theory1.

This recognises that planners can play a positive role in achieving benefits for the

environment by means of ‘communicative action’ and ‘mediated negotiation’ (Rydin,

1998). Drawing on ideas in institutionalist politics, March and Olsen (1989) argue

that, regardless of the cultural differences between countries, ‘political democracy

depends not only on economic and social conditions but also on the design of political

institutions’.

“We learn from more than arguments and voice in participatory

settings, but how we do so is far from clear. In negotiations,

participatory groups, and ordinary meetings too, we learn not just with

our ears but with our eyes, not just with our heads but with our hearts.

We come not only to hear new information we find relevant, but we

come to see new issues that need our attention. We come not only to

revise our sense of strategies, but to develop new relationships with

others too.” (Forester, 1999:p129)

The emergence of a new model of governance calls for a novel form of partnership

institution driven by interdependence and networking between a range of actors

(Newman and Verpraet, 1999). This thesis draws on the results of research

establishing a framework for designing political institutions to achieve collaborative

planning in the field of integrated waterside revitalisation.

1.2 Research Aim and Objectives

The aim of the research is to investigate how a collaborative partnership approach as

presented in contemporary planning theories can be applied to, and improve, a process

of integrated waterside revitalisation in the practice of planning. For this aim, the

following objectives have been defined:

1. to examine how a process of integrated waterside revitalisation may be

conceptualised as a collaborative partnership approach, with particular reference

to theories of governance, collaborative planning, partnership, and integrated

watershed management;

1 See Healey (1992a; 1992b; 1993; 1994; 1997; 1998a; 1998b), and Healey et al. (1997). The work of Forester (1989; 1993; 1996; 1999) has also had a great influence.

4


2. to investigate how the theory and general principles of the collaborative

partnership approach have fared in a concrete example of waterside revitalisation;

focused on institutional arrangements and implementation of a collaborative

partnership in a particular river basin;

3. to develop guidelines to ensure that the particular practice of integrated waterside

revitalisation is consistent with the principles of a collaborative partnership

approach; and

4. at the same time, to judge the applicability of theory and principles to a real-life

context.

1.3 Research Methodology

To meet the aim and objectives, this research employs a case study methodology.

1.3.1 Case Study as a Research Strategy

The case study is but one of several ways of doing social science research. Other ways

include experiments, surveys, histories, and the analysis of archival information as in

economic studies. The essence of a case study is the attempt to illuminate a decision

or set of decisions; why they were taken, how they were implemented, and with what

result (Schramm, 1971). Comparing them with the other research methodologies, Yin

(1994) points out that case studies are the preferred strategy when “how” or “why”

questions are being posed, when the researcher has little control over events, and

when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context.

Together with advantages of case studies (Table 1.1) in mind, it is quite clear that the

research aim and objectives can only be achieved by a case study methodology.

5


Table 1.0.1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Case Studies

Advantages

1. Case studies allow the researcher to investigate a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when it is difficult to differentiate between phenomenon and context.

2. Case study data are drawn from people’s experiences and practices and so are seen to be strong in reality.

3. Case studies allow for generalisations from a specific instance to a more general issue.

4. Case studies allow the researcher to show the complexity of social life. Good case studies build on this to explore alternative meanings and interpretations.

5. Case studies can provide a data source from which further analysis can be made. They can, therefore, be archived for further research work.

6. Because case studies build on actual practices and experiences, they can be linked to action and their insights contribute to changing practice. Indeed, case study may be a subset of a broader action research project.

7. Because the data contained in case studies are close to people’s experiences, they can be more persuasive and more accessible.

Disadvantages

1. Case studies provide little basis for scientific generalisation. “How can you generalise from a single case?”

2. The very complexity of a case can make analysis difficult.

3. While the contextualisation of aspects of the case strengthen this form of research, it is difficult to know where ‘context’ begins and ends.

Source: Adapted from Blaxter et al. (2001), Cohen and Manion (2000) and Yin

(1994)

First, this research is to investigate a “contemporary social phenomenon” in a “real-

life context” that can only be satisfied by a case study methodology. Unravelling a

mechanism of delivering collaborative efforts in practice requires data drawn from

people’s experiences and practices. Second, the central aim of this thesis is to answer

the question of “how” collaborative efforts can be made in the practice of planning.

Third, the researcher can use case studies when the boundaries between phenomenon

and context are not clearly evident (Yin, 1994). Policy and decision-making processes

surround integrated waterside management are complex and impossible to separate

from its economic, social, environmental and political contexts.

The greatest concern over disadvantages of case studies is perhaps the lack of rigour

of case study research that may provide little basis for systematic generalisation.

Taking this argument into account, this study uses a number of different research

techniques; documentation review, observation and interview2. These multiple

2 For further details of research methodology, see Section 5.2.1

6


sources of evidence permit triangulation of crosschecking results and generating new

insights into the data (England, 1993; Yin, 1994).

1.3.2 Selecting the Case Study

The Mersey Basin Campaign, the North West of England, has been chosen as a case

study. The Campaign is a strategic partnership between public, private and voluntary

sectors. It aims to improve the water quality of the rivers, canals and estuary of the

Mersey Basin and restore associated degraded land to optimum uses for industry,

housing or amenity. The Campaign is a 25-year government-sponsored initiative that

was formally launched by the Department of the Environment in 1985.

Ten years ago notices along the Mersey advised people not to throw

lighted cigarettes into the water for fear of igniting vapours rising

from the water. Now, … seals have been seen swimming in the estuary

and octopuses have been discovered where once the few remaining fish

were so contaminated with mercury and cadmium that they attracted a

public health warning. (Brown, 1999: p10)

The Campaign is not only one of the largest river basin projects in the world (Wood et

al., 1999) but also a very early example of collaborative partnership that pioneered the

idea of collaborative planning in the process of integrated waterside revitalisation in

the UK. In 1999, the Campaign awarded the Inaugural Thiess Environmental Service

Riverprize in recognition of excellence in river management, which is a global

competition with over 100 entries.

For further in-depth investigation of service delivery practice of collaborative

partnership, this thesis chooses six detailed case studies within the Campaign. The

selection of, and introduction to, case studies are discussed thoroughly in Chapter 5.

1.4 The Structure of the Thesis

This thesis can be divided into two distinct parts; the theoretical framework (Part 1)

and the case study (Part 2). Figure 1.1 illustrates the structure of the thesis.

7


Figure 1.0.1 The Structure of the Thesis

This chapter, Chapter 1, introduces the thesis, setting out the research framework and

methodology to meet the research aim and objectives. The chapter states the research

context and includes a brief account of the generation of research questions and the

choice of research techniques. This also introduces the structure of the thesis as a

whole.

Part 1 (Chapter 2, 3 and 4) engages with research objectives one and three: to

conceptualise collaborative partnership approaches learning from theories of

8


governance, integrated waterside revitalisation, partnership and collaborative

planning; and to develop principles and guidelines for a collaborative partnership

approach.

Chapter 2 presents the theories of governance that are applied to those of integrated

waterside revitalisation. The chapter explores the trend of governance in the UK, in

particular the practice of waterside management, and develops principles for

integrated waterside revitalisation by adapting ecosystem approaches. This chapter

concludes with emphasis on the need for collaborative planning to implement

effective waterside management. In Chapter 3, the concept of collaborative planning

is examined in terms of theories and practice. By exploring operational difficulties of

collaborative planning in practice, the chapter searches for a desirable instrument to

deliver collaborative efforts in a real-life context. As a possible institutional

arrangement for collaborative planning, the chapter also explores the notion of

partnership approaches. Drawing from the results of the investigations in Chapters 2

and 3, Chapter 4 develops a theoretical framework for the case studies. This chapter

provides principles and guidelines for implementation of collaborative partnership

including its institutional arrangement and the mechanism for delivering its service.

Part 2 (Chapters 5, 6 and 7) reflects the research objectives two and four: to

investigate how the concept of the collaborative partnership approach has fared in a

concrete example of waterside revitalisation; and to judge the applicability of theory

and principles to a real-life context.

Chapter 5 provides a background to the case study with a contextual and descriptive

account of the case study. This includes the rationale behind the selection of the case

study, the Mersey Basin Campaign, and further six case studies from Campaign’s

activities for the investigation of service delivery mechanisms. In Chapter 6, the

institutional arrangements of a concrete example of collaborative partnership are

investigated in four stages of a partnership life cycle: pre-partnership collaboration;

partnership creation and consolidation; partnership programme delivery; and

partnership termination and succession. Chapter 7 focuses especially on the practice

of service delivery in a particular collaborative partnership. The six case studies are

classified and evaluated in three different aspects of collaborative efforts: consensus

building; facilitation; and open participation.

9


Chapter 8 sets out the final conclusion for the whole thesis. The chapter summarises

the results of the investigation of theoretical frameworks and case studies, and

attempts to evaluate the thesis in the wider spectrum of collaborative planning. The

chapter concludes with the limitations of the thesis and proposals for further study

that is needed in order to implement more effective collaborative efforts in the

practice of planning.

10

Chapter Two: Governance Issues in Waterside Revitalisation

Chapter Two:

Governance Issues

in Waterside Revitalisation

11


2.1 Introduction

The theories of governance are often explanatory ones describing the new social-

political phenomenon of modern society. Shifting the analytical focus from

government to governance means, in general, focusing more on process and less on

institutions (Jessop, 1995). Stoker (1997) has defined the concept of governance as

wider than that of government; it takes into account not just the institutions of

government but also the process through which these institutions interact with civil

society.

This chapter aims to conceptualise governance under three headings: characteristics,

typology and modes of governance. The historical trend of governance and its

influence on planning practice in the UK is also explored in this chapter, with a

particular focus on the practice of environmental planning and waterside

revitalisation. By examining the principles for waterside revitalisation, this chapter

concludes that a collaborative planning style is a desirable planning type among the

others in delivering integrated waterside revitalisation.

2.2 Conceptualising Governance

In modern society the main tendency in social-political issues has been to shift the

balance between government and society away from the public sector and more

towards the private and voluntary sectors. New patterns of interaction between

government and society shift the balance towards a sharing of tasks and

responsibilities, towards doing things together instead of doing them either by the

‘state’ or by the ‘market’ (Kooiman, 1993b). This has changed the traditional image

of government. Modern government is no longer seen as the direct provider of welfare

and other public services. The image of government has been changed as an enabler, a

catalytic agent facilitating provision and action by and through others. Osborne and

Gaebler (1992) have described this ‘reinvented’ form of government as more about

‘steering’ and less about ‘rowing’ by emphasising the role of government as a policy

manager, catalyst, and broker.

Generally speaking, the concept of governance is wider than that of government,

which is used to refer to the formal institutional structure and location of authoritative

12


decision-making in the modern state (Leftwich, 1994). The concept of governance

directs attention to the distribution of power both internal and external to the state.

Stoker (1997) points out that governance is about governmental and non-

governmental organisations working together to achieve policy goals. Its concern is

with how the challenge of collective action is met and the issues and tensions

associated with this shift in the pattern of governing.

In order to conceptualise governance, this section explores three aspects of

governance. Firstly, characteristics of governance (complexity, dynamics and

diversity) are used to describe a new form of social-political phenomenon in modern

society. Secondly, by translating these characteristics of governance to planning

theory, four different types of planning style are classified: the bureaucratic model;

the political influence model; the ideological model; and the collaborative model.

Finally, modes of governance (hierarchies, markets and networks) are introduced as

an analytical framework for understanding the ways of delivering governance in

modern society.

2.2.1 Characteristics of Governance

In a systematic approach to explaining the new social-political phenomenon,

Kooiman (1993a) has applied the notions of dynamics, complexity and diversity to

the concept of governance. In the new forms of governance the complex, dynamic and

varied qualities of social-political systems may find a better and more profound

expression than in most traditional political or administrative models of government.

In other words, the nature of society is basically dynamic, complex and varied, but the

traditional way of governing is not dynamic, complex and varied (enough). Because

of the lack of tradition in looking at and working with complexity, dynamics and

diversity, disciplines such as public administration and political science have

produced hardly any analytical or operational tools for governing. Therefore, the

nature of governance should be in line with that of society, dynamics, complexity and

diversity.

Dynamics is about systems going from one state or place to another and always

implies interactions that are the primary operational forces in societies. A dynamic

approach to governance emphasises the process and changes of interactions between

13


players. It pays systematic attention to the forces that bring about movements and it

tries to influence these patterns of change and their consequences. It manipulates

aspects of the dynamics of interference, interplay and intervention.

Complexity is consisting of many different and connected parts (Pearsall, 1998), and

consequently deals with manifold interactions of many parts within a system.

Complexity does not have to do with the number or variety of subsystems, but with

the way they interact. Selecting and ordering interactions is the essence of coping with

complexity.

Diversity is to do with the great and growing individualisation, differentiation,

specialisation and variety of the modern society. Diversity emphasises on individual

opportunities and responsibilities. The importance of diversity is particularly

emphasised in relation to dynamics and complexity. Neither dynamics nor complexity

by themselves contain objective criteria to decide whether an interaction is going in a

certain direction or to decide whether a certain interaction still belongs to a

(sub)system or not (Kooiman, 1993a).

2.2.2 Typology of Governance

INTERDEPENDENCE AND DIVERSITY

It is clear that a concept of governance is impossible to separate from that of

dynamics, complexity and diversity. However, there is difficulty in applying the

notion of dynamics, complexity and diversity as an analytical framework for

classifying types of planning style. This is mainly because there is considerable

duplication between the three. Governance takes place in interactions between actors

on micro (individuals), meso (organisation and management) and macro (regions)

levels of social-political aggregation. These interactions not only reflect the basic

complexity, dynamics and diversity of modern society, but also interactions are

themselves complex, dynamic and diverse. The three qualities are useful to explain

the concept of governance, but it is difficult to separate each quality as a dependent

variable. Therefore, there is the need to simplify the theory of dynamics, complexity

and diversity in order to challenge for the development of a typology of planning style

within the concept of governance.

14


In this context, Innes and her colleagues develop two variables, interdependence

(reflecting dynamics and complexity) and diversity (Innes and Gruber, 1999; and

Innes and Booher, 2000). These variables focus on the interactive relationship among

interests and players. Interdependence implies that actors are interrelated or connected

such that something that happens to at least one actor, on at least one occasion, in at

least one place, will affect all the actors. Consequently, interdependence increases a

dynamic and complex feedback loop between players (Evans and Newnham, 1992).

These interactions are explained with the concept of reciprocity. Networking these

interests provides the power to not only enable changes and successful adaptation but

also respond to environmental stresses and opportunities. In the contemporary

information-based global society (Castells, 1996) interdependence and linkages have

become more important than ever to the success of enterprises (Davis and Meyer,

1998).

TYPES OF PLANNING STYLE

Innes and Gruber (1999) developed four types of planning style by applying

characteristics of governance, interdependence and diversity. These four types are: the

rational/technical model of planning; the political influence model of planning; the

ideological model of planning; and the collaborative model of planning (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.0.2 Types of Planning Style

PoliticalInfluence Collaborative

Rational/Technical

BureaucraticIdeological

Interdependence

Div

ersi

ty

Source: Adapted from Innes and Gruber (1999)

15


The rational/technical or bureaucratic model of planning style is the traditional

approach in planning, where the task involves the analysis of alternatives in the light

of known and defined goals and objectives (Innes and Gruber, 1999). This typically

also includes the tasks of making sure plans and strategies are consistent with laws

and regulations and consistently applied in practice. This model is best adapted for

situations where there is little or no difference of opinion about goals and where

complex interdependencies among players do not have a significant role.

The political influence model of planning style is one that is often seen as anti-

planning, though many planners and much planning practice often embrace this

approach. The basic idea behind this model is to develop a plan, which provides

something for all or most of the powerful interests. The idea is that a person (or

agency) accumulates power by winning the loyalty of these interests (Innes and

Gruber, 1999). The political influence model is more effective than the

rational/technical model at dealing with diverse interests. There is however a

limitation in dealing with interdependencies among these interests.

The ideological model of planning style is driven by an ideology or at least a set of

ideas the players hope to implement. Innes and Gruber (1999) pointed out that this

kind of planning tends to be implemented by players who are outside the

governmental process, who organise and spearhead a movement to promote a

particular view of how a community or region ought to be. The ideological model of

planning does recognise interdependency, through only for the limited set of interests

included in the movement. Typically, environmental advocacy organisations operate

under this model.

The collaborative model of planning style is one where multiple stakeholders

representing different interests work together through face-to-face dialogues to help

decide what the issues are and what to do about them. Collaboration involves

reciprocity and synergy. This model of planning can be time consuming, but it has the

advantage that it may be the only way to develop a collective vision on which players

can act without central direction or control and the only way to resolve some conflicts

(Innes and Booher, 1999b). The collaborative planning deals with both diversity of

players and interdependence.

16


2.2.3 Modes of Governance

Modes of governance can be characterised and deployed in an analytical framework

for understanding the way social life is organised (Thompson et al. 1991). These

modes are those of markets, hierarchies and networks and are defined and compared

in Table 2.1. Markets are relationships based on contract, prices and haggling.

Hierarchies focus on formal and bureaucratic relationships based on employment.

Networks are relative informal relationships based on mutual benefits and reciprocity.

Table 2.0.2 Modes of Governance: Markets, Hierarchies and Networks

Key Features Market Hierarchy Network

Normative basis Contract - Property rights

Employment relationship

Complementary strengths

Means of communication Prices Routines Relational

Methods of conflict resolution

Haggling - resort to courts for enforcement

Administrative fiat - supervision

Norm of reciprocity - reputational concerns

Degree of flexibility High Low Medium

Amount of commitment among the parties

Low Medium to high Medium to high

Tone or climate Precision and/or suspicion

Formal, bureaucratic Open-ended, mutual benefits

Actor preferences or choices Independent Dependent Interdependent

Source: Adapted from Powell (1991)

HIERARCHIES

Hierarchy presupposes an already determined outcome or purpose; the underlying

idea of hierarchy is that such an outcome can be a broken down into a set of sub-

processes. So, hierarchy depends upon ideas of organisation, task specialisation and

rationality. In addition hierarchies involve a stratification of authority and the

following of rules. Thus each level of a hierarchy directs the action of those ‘lower

down’, ultimate authority resides with those at the ‘top’, and at each level those

involved carry out more narrowly defined tasks with less and less autonomy. The

hierarchical running of organisations is usually referred to as bureaucracy.

In a hierarchy mode of governance communication occurs in the context of the

employment contract. Relationships matter and previous interactions shape current

17


ones, but the patterns and context of intra-organisational exchange are most strongly

shaped by one’s position within the formal hierarchical structure of authority. Elliott

Jaques (Jaques, 1991) (p118) points out that “hierarchy is the best structure for getting

work done in big organisations”. This is because a hierarchical structure - clear

departmental boundaries, clean lines of authority, detailed reporting mechanisms, and

formal decision-making procedures - is particularly well-suited for mass production

and distribution.

MARKETS

Markets, as described by economic theory, are spontaneous co-ordination

mechanisms with rationality and consistency to the self-interested actions of

individuals and firms. The crucial feature of the market as a co-ordination device is

that it involves voluntary exchange of goods and services between two parties at a

known price. Through a complex set of such exchanges the economic activities of

people who are widely dispersed and who are entirely unaware of each other’s

existence can be co-ordinated.

In a market mode of governance transactions, the benefits to be exchanged are clearly

specified, no trust is required, and agreements are bolstered by the power of legal

sanction. The value of the goods to be exchanged in markets is much more important

than the relationship itself. The market is open to all comers, but while it brings

people together, it does not establish strong bonds of altruistic attachments. Markets,

however, offer choice, flexibility and opportunity. Market co-ordination is the result

of human actions but not of human design (Hayek, 1945), and then has powerful

incentive effects from the society.

NETWORKS

The key feature of networks is that co-operation and trust are formed and sustained

within networks. In contrast to either hierarchy or market, networks co-ordinate

through less formal, more egalitarian and co-operative means. In a network mode of

governance, individual players (especially in relation to resource allocation) exist not

by themselves, but in relation to other players. Benefits and burdens come to be

shared. A mutual orientation - knowledge that the parties assume each has about the

18


other and upon which they draw in communication and problem solving - is

established. In comparison to hierarchies, networks are rather horizontal relationships

(Lowndes et al. 1997; Powell, 1991; and Thompson et al. 1991).

Rhodes (1991) argues that networks have different structures of dependencies, and

classifies five different networks: policy networks; issue networks; professionalised

networks, intergovernmental networks and producer networks (Table 2.2). Policy

networks can be characterised by vertical relationships, stability and continuity of a

highly restrictive membership. These kinds of networks may occur in a political arena

such as Parliament. Issue networks involve large number of participants, but there is

limited degree of interdependence, as there is often no single focal point in the arena.

However, it is clear that the variety of network is potentially much greater than the

five categories. As Rhodes discussed, there is no one pattern of relationships for all

policy areas.

Table 2.0.3 Varieties of Network

Varieties of Network Key CharacteristicsPolicy Networks Complex of organisations connected to each other by resource dependencies

and distinguished from other complexes by breaks in the structure of resource dependencies. Stability of relationships, continuity of a highly restrictive membership, vertical interdependence based on shared service delivery responsibilities and insulation from other networks and invariably from the general public.

Issue Networks Large number of participants and their limited degree of interdependence. Stability and continuity are at a premium, and the structure tends to be atomistic. Commonly, there is no single focal point at the centre with which other sectors need to bargain for resources.

Professionalised Networks

Pre-eminence of one class of participant in policy-making: the profession, e.g. the National Health Service, wherein the power of the medical profession is substantial. These networks express the interests of a particular profession and manifest a substantial degree of vertical independence whilst insulating themselves from other networks.

Intergovernmental Networks

Membership with the explicit exclusion of all public sector unions; an extensive constellation of interests encompassing all the services (and associated expertise and clients) of local authorities; and limited vertical interdependence because they have no service delivery responsibilities but extensive horizontal articulation or ability to penetrate a range of other networks, i.e. the national community of local government.

Producer Networks Prominent role of economic interests (both the public and private sector), in policy-making; their fluctuating membership; the dependence of the centre on industrial organisations for delivering the desired goods and for expertise; and the limited interdependence of the economic interests.

Source: Adapted from Benson (1982), Heclo (1978) and Rhodes (1991)

19


2.3 Governance in Waterside Revitalisation

Governance in the UK has been changed with influence of economic, social and

political issues. Activities in town and regional planning including waterside

management have also been consistent with trend of governance. Priority in relation

to waterside management issues has varied in different societies and periods (Table

2.3). For example, priorities in developing countries may focus on rather water

resources as irrigation, hydroelectric power, flood protection for food security, and

pollution control concerning eradication of disease; whilst developed countries may

prioritise their water resources focusing on water supplies, recreational uses, and

nature conservation. This section explores how the changing of governance has

influenced waterside management.

Table 2.0.4 Prioritising the Issues of Water-based Schemes

‘Developed countries’ ‘Developing countries’Priorities often domestic and industrial supplies

WATER RESOURCES Priorities often irrigation and hydro-electric power

Priorities normally urban centres FLOOD PROTECTION Priority is food securityMajor influence associated with property rights

FISHERIES Subsistence only: little enhancement

Reacts to ‘chemophobia’ POLLUTION CONTROL Eradication of diseaseIncreasingly RECREATION Little knownIncreasingly CONSERVATION Little knownSource: Adapted from Newson (1992)

2.3.1 Changing of Governance in Waterside Management

The overall historical review on the trend of governance in the UK including the

practice of waterside management is summarised in Table 2.4. This periodical

analysis is reviewed under five headings: economic and social change; salient

political issues; key planning activities; environmental and waterside management;

and primary modes of governance.

20


Table 2.0.5 The Trend of Governance in the UK

1950s and 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990sEconomic and social change

Post-war boomMixed economyConsensus politics

Turning point in economic growthUrban-rural shiftInner city decline

Recession (and recovery)New technologyCollapse of mixed economy consensus

Globalisation of: politics, economics and environmental change

Salient political issues

Increasing living standardsRapid development

Racism and urban disorderExcesses of economic growth

UnemploymentThatcherism

European integrationEnvironmental crisis

Key planning activities

New townsRedevelopment

Inner city policyRehabilitation and conservationPollution control

Urban regenerationCountryside policyFlagship projects

RegenerationSustainable developmentCollaborative planning

Environmental and waterside management

Growth management in functional terms: resource, recreation and amenityLack of stewardshipWater quality improvement: pollution controlRiver engineering: flood preventionWaterway management

Active environmental care and protection Mixture of utilitarian/ functional concernsFocus on countrysideActive water pollution controlRiverside development as recreational functionPublic sector service delivery

Market-led utilitarianism Narrow conception of conservationAbandoned waterside redevelopmentPublic-private partnership approachGreater private sector involvement in large scale dockland redevelopment

Sustainable, holistic and ecological approachIntegrated environmental managementWaterside as an ecosystem concernHolistic partnership approach in natural basin boundaryEmphasis on stewardship

Primary modes of governance

Hierarchies: the paternalistic approaches of the public sector

Hierarchies and markets: growth of the market mode in the domination of the hierarchy mode

Hierarchies and markets: the domination of the market mode

Hierarchies, markets and networks: emphasis of the network mode in line with influence from European Union collaborative planning concept and sustainable development

Source: Modified from Cullingworth and Nadin (1994), Kidd and Shaw (2000), Parker and Penning-Rowsell (1980) and Rydin (1998)

21


The 1960s and 1970s: Hierarchies

Since the nineteenth century watersides have tended to be considered as supporting

economic activity such as fishery, agriculture and industry based on rapid commercial

and industrial growth and consequent rapid urbanisation. The post-war economic

boom of the early 1970s collapsed in 1973-74, as oil prices and interest rates rose

(Rydin, 1998). Economic decline left watersides as a neglected resource, including

abandoned industrial sites and older port areas. Despite the fact that watersides were

beginning to be considered for recreation and leisure uses in the 1970s (Parker and

Penning-Rowsell, 1980), heavily polluted water severely restricted recreational

opportunities. Environmentalists became more vocal about issues of pollution (Rydin,

1998).

The shift towards more environmentally conscious public policy was becoming

particularly evident at the European level (Rydin, 1998). As early as 1970, the

Countryside Commission recommended changes to the practice of coastline

management in England and Wales in ‘The Planning of the Coastline’ (Countryside

Commission, 1970). In terms of its history, coastal zone management is rather

different from the other waterside development approaches. Coastal planning has

been directed towards helping to ensure wildlife conservation in coastal areas. This is

partly because about a third of the coastline of England and Wales is included in

national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. However, as Cullingworth and

Nadin (1994) point out, there have also been economic pressures for major industrial

development in certain parts, particularly on some estuaries. It cannot be ignored that

a growing number of people are attracted to the coast for recreation and for

retirement.

Environmental planning, including waterside management, was extended and

significantly developed in this period, particularly with regard to pollution control.

This was in response to the continuing growth of the environmental movement in this

period and the evident problems of past growth. Planning activities in the 1970s

focused externally on the economic, political and social contexts. By the early 1970s,

planning seemed to be firmly established as a central part of state planning, led by the

public sector and the ideas of command and control (Davies, 1998).

22


The 1980s: Markets

The 1980s was the decade of Thatcherism, a political response to the economic and

social conditions of the time, which has had its own profound social and economic

consequences. The 1980s began with the deepening and eventual bottoming-out of the

economic recession that followed the 1973-4 oil crisis (Rydin, 1998). While urban

policy of the 1970s focused on improving public sector service delivery, the 1980s

can be seen as a decade of economic regeneration in line with a more market-oriented

approach. The power of the state was to be reduced through privatisation and

deregulation (Davies, 1998).

In the 1980s, the primary thrust of urban policy in Britain was urban regeneration

through private sector property development (Lawless, 1989; Robson, 1988;

Solesbury, 1990).Various new policies have encouraged land and property

development in this period. City Grants (formerly Urban Development Grants and

Urban Regeneration Grants) were usually obtained for property schemes, although the

number of jobs created may assist a project to obtain a grant. Derelict Land Grants,

made available in urban areas in 1982, favoured ‘hard’ projects where there is

property development as opposed to ‘soft’ ones, which may merely provide open

space or an enhanced environment. Urban Development Corporations (UDCs),

created in 1980, appear to have been established to create an environment in which

property development will occur and one criterion for measuring their success was the

amount of such investment leverage (Law, 1992).

In the 1970s and 1980s economic vitality in waterside areas was in decline with the

industrial crisis, and became a neglected resource in the region and the nation. Dating

from the ‘boom’ at the end of the nineteenth century, the older dock area gradually

declined to become one of the more depressed areas of the city during the 1970s.

Abandoned older port areas, often close to the urban core zone, bring severe physical

and economic problems while at the same time offering unrivalled opportunities for

regeneration by reinstalling other forms of economic activities.

In this period most large-scale dockland regeneration projects were carried out by a

partnership between the public and private sectors. The rise of the partnership

approach also influenced watersides, and was accompanied by the launch of the

UDCs. They had extensive planning powers within their designated areas (mainly in

23


waterfronts), and undertook a policy of encouraging private sector developments

through cheap land and infrastructure investment (Rydin, 1998). Subject to criticisms,

they have transferred abandoned and vandalised areas to commercially and

environmentally reliable areas. The 1989 Water Act in England and Wales split the

regional water authorities into privatised water companies and established the

National Rivers Authority (NRA). The rapid rise of public interest in, and knowledge

about, environmental issues through the 1980s created a climate in which public

participation was expected and, indeed, required in almost every planning situation

(Heathcote, 1998).

The 1990s: Networks

In 1972 the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm was

significant in raising awareness and produced a declaration comprising 26 statements,

which formed the basis for current international environmental law. Following on

from this conference, in 1987 the UN World Commission on Environment and

Development, WCED, published its report, Our Common Future (WCED, 1987).

This argued forcefully for the existence of a global environmental treaty and sought to

popularise the concept of ‘sustainable development’: that is development that meets

the need of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet

their own needs. The 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro initiated an Agenda

21 process oriented towards the implementation of policies for sustainable

development, and the recognition that much of this change would have to occur at the

local level in turn led to a Local Agenda 21 process.

This sustainability concept has been extensively emphasised in planning activities in

the 1990s. The implementation of the sustainability concept emphasises the need for

co-ordination between economic, environmental and social aspects of planning

activity. As the need for integration became more widely accepted, the importance of

networks in governance was increasingly accentuated, together with hierarchies and

markets. Williams (1996) points out that networking enables interaction between

authorities and organisations from different member-states, and has become a major

feature of professional life throughout the EU.

24


The 1990s may be characterised by a collaborative approach closely associated with

the language of ‘sustainability’ and the ‘ecosystem approach’. This novel planning

theory is closely associated with the work of Patsy Healey under the heading of

collaborative planning theory3 (earlier variants were termed communicative planning).

Collaborative planning focuses on building links between networks and doing so

communicatively (Healey, 1997). In this context, Amin and Thrift (1995) emphasise

the web of social relations, and the networks linking actors and organisations.

In terms of institutions for environmental planning, the Environment Agency for

England and Wales was established in 1996 by integrating the responsibilities of other

existing authorities4. The broad scope of the Environment Agency takes into account

the natural boundaries such as river catchment areas. However, the local community

identity and a true sense of partnership are limited in the Agency’s approach (Kidd

and Shaw, 2000). There was, in this period, an almost universal emphasis on

partnership whether for urban regeneration, local economic development or local

environmental initiatives. The changes in urban policy exemplified this with a shift

away from the traditional Urban Programme towards a system whereby local

authorities were required to bid for inner city money in partnership with business and

voluntary organisations. This was first through City Challenge and then through the

Single Regeneration Budget, which combined various grant regimes. This shift

towards partnership can be seen as part of a broader change towards patterns of

‘governance’ rather than ‘government’.

In terms of the style of planning, there does not appear to be any evidence yet of a

shift away from the partnership approach that resulted from Major’s government

approach to the Thatcherite initiatives of the 1980s (Rydin, 1998). However, there

was a remarkable transformation in the nature of partnership working in the 1990s

due to the advent of the concept of ‘sustainability’. It breaks out of the traditional

thinking of urban regeneration that is particularly related to ‘the market’.

Consequently, this broadens the range of stakeholder involvement and establishes a

new type of partnership leading to a collaborative approach. In this operation,

networking and bargaining have been seen as valuable skills for actors to achieve the

sustainability goals associated with economic, environmental and social issues.

3 This major approach is examined in more detail later in Section 3.2.4 The integrated responsibilities are from the former NRA, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Pollution, the local waste regulation authorities and certain staff of the Department of the Environment.

25


2.3.2 From Government towards Governance

As discussed, changing social-political environments have forced planning activity to

reform patterns of governance rather than government. Figure 2.2 summarises the

changing of governance in relation to types of planning style and modes of

governance.

Figure 2.0.3 From Government Towards Governance

Source: Kim and Batey (2001), middle diagram is adapted from Innes and Gruber

(1999)

The primary planning style of the 1960s and 70s was the rational/technical or

bureaucratic planning. As the actors in planning activity were less diverse and less

interdependent, hierarchies were a primary mode of governance. However, it is

clearly evident that a market mode of governance was dominant in the practice of

planning in the 1980s. The planning style in the 1990s can be characterised by

collaborative planning that emphasises a network mode of governance in dealing with

conflict situations between multiple players. A crude periodisation of modes of

26


governance can also carry with it the myth of progress - bureaucracy as all-bad,

markets as a necessary evil, and networks as the ‘new Jerusalem’ (Lowndes and

Skelcher, 1998). However, it cannot be ignored that hierarchies and markets are also

important for collaborative planning models to enable organisations operate in

planning practice.

2.4 Implementing Waterside Revitalisation

This section aims to explore the notion of waterside environments and principles in

implementing waterside revitalisation. The first part examines a set of nine principles

in relation to waterside issues based on the concept of an ecosystem approach and

sustainability. The second part explores general guidelines for institutional

arrangement in waterside planning and management.

2.4.1 Principles for Waterside Revitalisation

THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH

Figure 2.3 illustrates the concept of ecosystem approach. Human activities need to be

concerned by building links between natural environment, economy and society. This

approach should be viewed as a healing process that restores and maintains

environmental health, as well as anticipating and preventing future harm. This means

striving to ensure that existing land uses and activities are adapted, and all new

developments are designed to contribute to the health, diversity, and sustainability of

the entire ecosystem (the physical environment, human communities, and economic

activities). To deal effectively with environment-related problems, an ecosystem

approach is required to managing human activities.

27


Figure 2.0.4 An Ecosystem Approach to Managing Human Activities

Natu

ral

Envir

onm

ent

EconomySociety

HumanActivities

Source: Author

PRINCIPLES FOR WATERSIDE REVITALISATION

In order to apply the ecosystem approach to waterside revitalisation, this research

identified nine principles that can be applied to make watersides healthier for

environment, community, and economy: cleanliness, conservation, connectivity,

accessibility, usability, diversity, affordability, attractiveness and stewardship5.

Cleanliness is essential to achieve the waterside’s full potential as an attractive

environment for the nature, society and businesses. Cleaner waterside environments

can support a healthier waterside ecosystem. Clean watersides can also offer

recreational opportunities; increase the property value of waterside location; reduce

costs of fresh water supply; and encourage businesses to locate.

Conservation of the waterside ecosystem and heritage is the second principle. The

waterside is one of the most diverse and productive ecosystems, and a rich variety of

species is the cornerstone of a healthy ecosystem. Moreover, waterside heritage

provides not only educational and tourism opportunities but also an attractive

environment for recreational and commercial activities.

The Connectivity principle has two aspects; greenway network connections as a

region’s ‘green infrastructure’; and institutional network connections. Watersides that

provide linear greenway with rich wildlife habitats must be connected with a region’s

5 These nine principles for revitalising waterside are modified from Kim (1998) and Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront (1990).

28


greenway network such as parts of wildlife corridors, green wedges and green belts.

The institutional arrangements should be formalised by connecting all interest groups

in water-related issues.

Accessibility to watersides should be designed for all kinds of community. People

should have accessibility to watersides facilitated by integrated public transport,

valley trails, formal walkways linking the city’s green infrastructure by overcoming

the barriers often presented by road and rail corridors. Watersides should also be

psychologically accessible to ethnic groups and all sectors of society, including the

disabled, children, and elderly people by removing the threat of vandalism.

The Usability of watersides should be able to support a mix of public and private uses

that are primarily water-related and permit public access, use, and enjoyment of the

water’s edge. Revitalisation should provide a local balance of employment and

residential opportunities, and minimise conflicts with adjacent or existing

communities. In terms of waterside engineering, the design, use, and management of

waterside places should enhance safety and minimise risks caused by flooding and

erosion.

The Diversity of waterside uses and the environment should not only stimulate

various patterns of land use, but also add to the diversity of experiences and settings

in both the built and natural environment. The mix of land uses and facilities for

competing public demands within environmental limits should be balanced between:

public and private; urban and rural; regional and local; residential and recreational;

industrial and commercial; built and natural environments; large- and small-scale;

active and passive; busy and quiet; and free and user-pay.

Affordability enables the waterside to belong to every group of society. In economic

terms, this means there must be a balance of affordable recreation opportunities and a

mix of housing types to allow in people of all income levels. For the developer,

waterside projects might be more affordable when there is co-ordination of activities

and sharing of resources. Additionally, a healthy environment may be a more

productive setting for economic activities.

Attractiveness can bring people into the waterside and make it a place to enjoy. The

natural attractiveness of the waterside includes water, wildlife and green space.

29


However, other land uses of watersides should also be attractive to the public. Open

space, waterside restaurants, and shopping are desirable aspects, and can be followed

by large-scale developments. Design and landscaping should protect, enhance, and

create distinctive and memorable places along the waterside.

Stewardship within waterside communities is one of the most important factors in

revitalising watersides. This is because communities are also users, maintainers and

polluters. Undoubtedly, the people who live, work or use watersides can maintain and

continue to revitalise watersides. They should be managed by stewardship, and most

communities should be able to be involved in the waterside revitalisation. Therefore,

local communities are able to value their waterside with their own vision rather than

that of others. Moreover, involving community volunteers is cost-effective in

developing and managing watersides.

These nine principles in relation to elements of an ecosystem approach are illustrated

in Figure 2.4. For example, natural environment element of ecosystem may be

associated with principles of cleanliness, conservation and connectivity; economy

element may be tied up with usability, diversity and affordability; and society element

may be inconsistent with accessibility, attractiveness and stewardship. However, they

cannot be separated, and there should be an integrated and systematic approach to

delivering all principles.

30


Figure 2.0.5 Ecosystem and Principles for Waterside Revitalisation

Natu

ral

Envir

onm

ent

EconomySociety

HumanActivities

Cleanliness

Conservation

Connectivity

AccessibilityStewardship

Usability

Diversity

Affordability

Attractiveness

EcosystemApproach

Source: Kim and Batey (2001)

2.4.2 Institutional Arrangement for Waterside Revitalisation

STAKEHOLDERS IN WATERSIDE REVITALISTAION

A list of water-related interests has been developed by the National Rivers Authority

(1993), and is presented in Table 2.5. Categories of water use are potable (drinking)

water supply, industrial water supply, agriculture, flood control, thermal electric

power generation, hydroelectric power generation, navigation, water-based recreation,

fish and wildlife habitat, and water quality management. Not surprisingly, this set of

waterside stakeholders is more likely to focus on water resource management that was

the primary responsibility of the NRA. However, the NRA overlooked the importance

of landward activities, such as landward regeneration projects and forestry. In relation

to water uses, this research identifies waterside stakeholders in four categories6:

governing bodies, waterside businesses, public interest groups, and residential

(private) water users.

6 These categories are adapted from Heathcote’s model (Heathcote, 1998) that includes government agencies, industrial water users, commercial shipping and fishing interests, residential (private) water users, public interest groups, and aboriginal communities.

31


Table 0.6 Water Use Categories in Catchment Planning

Water Use Categories Typical UsesPotable (Drinking) Water Supply

Municipal water supply (surface or groundwater sources)Residential water supply (private wells)

Industrial Water Supply Process water supplyCooling waters

Agriculture Irrigation watersLivestock wateringMilkhouse wash waterLivestock housing wash water

Flood Control Impoundment of high flows for delayed releaseConstruction of dams, reservoirs, levees, and channel protection

Thermal Electric Power Generation

Cooling watersSettling pond watersWater for pipe flushing and maintenance

Hydroelectric Power Generation

Impoundment of water for power generation Construction of dams and reservoirsPumping and drawdown of water levels

Navigation Recreational boating (e.g., sailing, canoeing, motor boat traffic)Commercial shippingCommercial navigation for tourism purposes (e.g., sightseeing)

Water-based Recreation Recreational fishingRecreational boating and windsurfingSwimmingHikingPicnickingNature enjoyment activities (e.g., bird-watching)Aesthetic enjoyment

Fish and Wildlife Habitat Aquatic and riparian habitatsProtection of community structureProtection of rare and endangered species

Water Quality Management Protection of minimum flows for water quality preservationLow-flow augmentation from reservoirsAssimilation of waste discharges from municipalities and industriesAssimilation of storm- and combined-sewer discharges

Source: National Rivers Authority (1993)

Governing bodies have a direct role in water use and decision-making about river

basin management. These include government agencies, such as municipal

governments and their public utilities, natural resources agencies, public health

agencies, and agencies involved with shipping and navigation. These also include

water companies and government agencies that oversee and regulate water-related

activities, such as the Environment Agency

Waterside Businesses are both land-based and water-based industries. In general,

land-based industries are interested in obtaining water of adequate quality and

quantity for industrial process and cooling water purposes. Water-based industries

include commercial shipping and fisheries that concern about water level. This

32


category also includes businesses that are not directly related to water uses but located

adjacent to rivers, lakes, or canals. These businesses concern adjacent waterside

environments in terms of waste management and public relations. Waterside

businesses are among the most straightforward to understand and relatively easy to

list and characterise. However, there is potential for businesses to come into conflict

with recreational water users (water sports and recreational fisheries), wildlife habitat

preservation and local residents.

Public interest groups are sometimes termed non-government organisations, NGOs

(occasionally the acronym ENGO is used, for environmental non-governmental

organisation). It is important to note that these groups do not necessarily reflect all or

even a majority of public opinion on a given issue or watershed system. Often, they

have strong and clearly stated agendas of their own. The expertise in these groups is a

valuable adjunct to the planning process and many include perspectives and insights

that have largely been ignored by conventional planning approaches.

Residential (private) water users are the most numerous water users in most areas.

Their primary concerns are usually the quality of water for consumption and water

supply. Many also have an interest in recreational water-based activities such as

swimming, boating, and nature enjoyment. Additionally, there are also property

interests and strong links to valued local features in relation to water management

practice.

KEY ASPECTS FOR INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

Dealing with waterside stakeholders, Schramm (1980) has emphasised the need for

co-ordination and co-operation at local, regional, and national levels in waterside

revitalisation. He developed the following general guidelines for institutional

arrangement in river basin planning and management:

1. The institutional framework for the project must allow consideration of a wide

range of alternatives to solve observed problems, including those that may be

outside the specific responsibilities of planning bodies.

2. The planning agencies must have the expertise needed for multiple-objective

planning and evaluation procedures, especially in economic, social, and

environmental areas.

33


3. The institutional framework must facilitate adaptation of the plan to meet

changing national, regional, and local priorities.

4. The institutional framework must seek representation of all parties affected by the

specific development plans and management.

5. The institutional framework must reward initiative and innovation among the

members of the technical team and within co-operating agencies.

6. The technical team must be sufficiently free from day-to-day responsibilities so

that they can concentrate on long-range planning and anticipation of future

problems.

7. The institutions must have the capacity for learning and improving over time,

including sufficient continuity over time and the ability to evaluate past

programmes.

8. There must be sufficient authority within the institutional framework to enforce

conformity of execution with construction and operating plans.

9. The institutional framework must be capable of guaranteeing an acceptable

minimum level of professional performance by the technical team.

10. The plan implementation stage must include provisions for the timely and

sufficient supply of needed services by other agencies, as well as provisions to

assure continued functioning - i.e., operation, repair, and maintenance of the

facilities and services provided.

THE NEED FOR COLLABORATIVE PLANNING

The background of the shift to the governance is the governing failures caused by the

traditional model of government. In a theoretical perspective, Held (1987) emphasised

the need for governance in relation to involvement of the state in the reproduction of

the inequalities of everyday life; motions of political parties as appropriate structures

for bridging the gap between state and society and the array of power centres which

such parties and their leaders cannot reach; and conceptions of politics as

governmental affairs and systems of power which negate this concept. By translating

the notion of governance to waterside revitalisation, Westley (1995) points out the

fact that no one organisation, even in the case of the least jurisdictionally complex

ecosystem, can solve the problems of ecosystem management unilaterally.

34


Watersides have a considerable number of stakeholders including: public sector such

as central government, local governments and governmental agencies; private sector

such as water-based industries but also waterside adjacent businesses; voluntary

sector including numerous public interest groups in a wider perspective; and the

general public as water users. It is important to allow consideration of a wider range

of stakeholders in revitalising watersides and to achieve multiple objectives to meet

the nine principles of waterside revitalisation: cleanliness; conservation; connectivity;

accessibility; usability; diversity; affordability; attractiveness; and stewardship.

The need for integration between stakeholders in watersides has been discussed since

the 1970s. It is now clear that waterside environments involve diverse interests and

actors but also close interaction between them. Therefore, there is the need for a

collaborative planning approach in order to implement integrated waterside

revitalisation.

2.5 Conclusion

This chapter has explored the changes in governance in modern society in responding

to the changes of social-political environments and its influence on waterside

revitalisation in the UK. As an attempt to conceptualise governance, this chapter

characterised governance as dynamic, complex and diverse. Together with these

characteristics of governance, this research also introduced the four types of planning

style: the rational/technical or bureaucratic model; the political influence model; the

ideological model; and the collaborative planning model. Additionally, the three

modes of governance have been discussed: hierarchies; markets; and networks.

Through the periodical evaluation of governance in the UK, particularly focused on

environmental planning and waterside issues, it has been suggested that modern

society requires collaborative planning rather than a bureaucratic planning approach.

It has been argued that the modern information-based society deserves a notion of

governance that involves complexity, dynamics and diversity. Although the emphasis

of governance is on a collaborative planning model, it is essential to remember that

the collaborative planning model is not always suitable for all planning activities. The

concept of governance suggests that a certain political situation and problem can be

solved by a certain planning style (or combination of planning styles). Therefore the

35


challenge is to find a suitable institutional arrangement in responding to a particular

political environment.

Social and political environments of waterside revitalisation echo the trend towards

governance. Waterside issues emphasise the need for wider stakeholder involvements

and integration between multiple objectives to be achieved. As it engages diverse

interests and interdependence between actors, it is evident that there is the need for a

collaborative planning approach in revitalising watersides. Networking and

bargaining become valuable planning skills for the collaborative approach. The

collaborative planning model has been seen as a new form of governance model to

tackle problems caused by the fragmentary approach of traditional planning practice.

36

Chapter Three: Collaborative Planning and Partnership Instruments

Chapter Three:

Collaborative Planning and

Partnership Instruments

37


3.1 Introduction

This chapter acknowledges that a collaborative style of planning is needed in

revitalising watersides, and explores the notion of collaborative planning in theory

and practice. This chapter is structured to explore the nature of collaborative planning,

collaborative planning in practice, and an instrument for collaborative planning. The

chapter also explores the nature of the partnership approach, recognising an implicit

assumption that the partnership approach is a possible institutional arrangement for a

collaborative planning model.

3.2 Collaborative Planning Theory

3.2.1 Background to Collaborative Planning Theory

The basis of the collaborative planning concept is from communicative rationality as

articulated by Habermas who published ‘Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns,

Band I: Handlungsrationalitat und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung (Habermas,

1981)’ in 19817. There have been various interpretations of communicative rationality

as a basis for planning over the last two decades. When Habermas’ communicative

philosophy is translated to planning theory, a number of the terms have been used in

describing the new concept; for example, ‘communicative planning (Forester, 1989)’,

‘argumentative planning (Forester, 1993)’, ‘planning through debate (Healey,

1992a)’, ‘inclusionary discourse (Healey, 1994)’, ‘collaborative planning (Healey,

1997)’, ‘co-operative management regime (Glasbergen, 1998)’ and ‘deliberative

planning (Forester, 1999)’.

This diversity has arisen partly because collaborative planning is an evolution of

theoretical thinking, but it is also due to significant differences between the theoretical

bases of different forms of the collaborative approach. It also shows that theories

around collaborative planning are those developed to describe the new form of social

phenomenon that can be found in all parts of modern society rather than to guide the

novel form of governance. Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger (1998) argue that

collaborative planning is not so much a theory, rather it could be described as a ‘life

view’ based on a participatory perspective of democracy and a dislike –or at least a

7 It was translated as ‘The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (Habermas, 1984)’ in 1984.

38


grave suspicion – of free-market economies8. This ambiguity concerning the mixture

of these three components – evolution, difference and description – is particularly

problematic when the theory is translated to the practice of planning.

Two main approaches to collaborative planning have been developed by John

Forester (1989; 1993; 1996; and 1999) and by Patsy Healey (1992a; 1992b; 1993;

1994; 1997; 1998a; and 1998b). The difference between the two approaches not only

reflects different personal understandings but also reflects the different experiences

and focus of each author. Forester emphasises the US with its fragmented planning

framework that relies on more informal negotiation and Healey puts the emphasis on

experience of more formal arenas for mediation typical of the UK system. Healey’s

collaborative planning is more concerned with the transformative influence upon

existing structure (in the institutional sense) while Forester focuses more on agency

and the mechanisms and direct outcomes of inter-personal relations9. As this research

involves investigation of planning practice in the UK through the institutional

approach, the term ‘collaborative planning’ is used here.

3.2.2 The Concept of Collaborative Planning

DEFINITION OF COLLABORATIVE PLANNING

The collaborative planning approach is one where multiple stakeholders representing

different interests work together through face-to-face dialogues to help decide what

the issues are and what to do about them. Patsy Healey has advanced the main

components of a collaborative approach to planning (Table 3.1). Collaboration

involves reciprocity and synergy. Each player brings something that may help other

players and each has resources that others need and they jointly search for actions and

strategies that none could achieve alone. Thus collaborative planning deals with both

diversity of players and interdependence. A collaborative approach to planning can be

time consuming, but it has the advantage that it may be the only way to develop a

collective vision on which players can act without central direction or control, and the

only way to resolve some conflicts (Innes and Gruber, 1999).

8 The basis of the demonised instrumental rationality.9 For a more detailed discussion, see Allmendinger (Forthcoming), Healey (1997) and Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger (1998).

39


Table 3.0.7 The Main Components of a Collaborative Planning

Main Components of Collaborative Planning

1. a recognition that all forms of knowledge are socially constructed; and that the knowledge of science and the techniques of experts are not as different from ‘practical reasoning’ as the instrumental rationalists had claimed.

2. a recognition that the development and communication of knowledge and reasoning take many forms, from rational systematic analysis, to storytelling, and expressive statements, in words, pictures or sound.

3. a recognition, as a result, of the social context within which individuals form interests; individuals thus do not arrive at their ‘preferences’ independently, but learn about their views in social contexts and through interaction.

4. a recognition that, in contemporary life, people have diverse interests and expectations, and that relations of power have the potential to oppress and dominate not merely through the distribution of material resources, but through the finegrain of taken-for-granted assumptions and practices.

5. a realisation that public policies which are concerned with managing co-existence in shared spaces which seek to be efficient, effective and accountable to all those with a ‘stake’ in a place need to draw upon, and spread ownership of, the above range of knowledge and reasoning.

6. a realisation that this leads away from competitive interest bargaining towards collaborative consensus-building and that, through such consensus-building practices, organising ideas can be developed and shared which have the capacity to endure, to co-ordinate actions by different agents, and to transform ways of organising and ways of knowing in significant ways, in other words, to build cultures.

7. a realisation that, in this way, planning work is both embedded in its context of social relations through these day to day practices, and has a capacity to challenge and change these relations through the approach to these practices; context and practice are not therefore separated but socially constituted together.

Source: Adapted from Healey (1993; and 1997)

Collaborative planning emphasises networks as a mode of governance more than the

other modes, hierarchies and markets. There is evidence that where networks exist,

broadly based collaborative planning forms can develop rapidly (Healey et al. 1997).

In network forms of resource allocation, individual units exist not by themselves, but

in relation to other units (Powell, 1991). The network mode of governance arises from

a view that actors are able to identify complementary interests. Therefore, the

development of interdependent relationships based on trust, loyalty and reciprocity

enables the bringing together of all stakeholders on an equal basis.

40


One of the most significant advantages of networks is that they allow interactive

communication between stakeholders, considering communication is the most

important task in collaborative planning. Powell (1991) has indicated that the most

useful information is rarely that which flows down the formal chain of command in an

organisation (hierarchy mode), or that which can be inferred from shifting price

signals (market mode). Information passed through networks is ‘thicker’ than

information obtained in the market, and ‘freer’ than that communicated in a hierarchy.

Therefore, knowledge and information can flow through networks to implement their

common purpose (Thompson et al. 1991), and mutual learning and development of

skills between stakeholders can be encouraged. It is now clear that collaborative

activities can be developed and maintained through the network mode of governance.

ADVANTAGES OF COLLABORATIVE PLANNING

Advantages and the need of collaborative planning approaches that are described in a

range of literature reflect the notion of a collaborative approach, reciprocity and

synergy. By adapting a list developed by James Meadowcroft (1998) who focuses

especially on the area of environmental management (which is the focus of this

research) the advantages of collaborative approaches can be summarised in four

aspects.

First, a collaborative approach provides a structured framework for encouraging

pluralist inputs to policy-making. This is particularly important in the area of

environmental management where there is a complexity of the interests. It is clear that

no one party or narrow grouping of parties can resolve disputes successfully, and a

wide range of representation encourages more effective policy-making. As it is almost

impossible to process policy-making with inclusive involvement from all interest

groups in practice, a collaborative framework is required to allow that a limited

number of representative groups can collaborate in policy-making and its

implementation.

Second, a collaborative approach provides a mechanism for building consensus and

more especially for transforming interests. As participants explore the problems and

search for possible solutions together, they gain mutual understanding of each other’s

interests. This interaction leads to an interactive learning among participant groups by

41


engaging with each other within a structured framework in a process of defining

problems, identifying solutions and initiating practical reform (Glasbergen, 1996).

Third, collaborative approaches are flexible. They can be adapted to different

circumstances and applied in different contexts. It is particularly true when a

framework for collaborative efforts can be established in a piecemeal-based approach

as different problem areas can be identified. Additionally, flexibility enables a

framework to be established that is responsive to the changes of political and

economic environments. Flexibility also exists in relation to the variety of

participants, the decision-making framework, the management time frame, and the

implementation procedure.

Fourth, collaborative approaches have potential to generate more stable and

legitimate policy outcomes. Because a considerable number of interest groups are

involved in a process of policy-making, there may be the relative openness and

transparency of the process. Meadowcroft (1998) pointed out that many relevant

groups are involved in concluding and enforcing an agreed solution set, and thus

policies may appear more authoritative in the eyes of concerned publics. These

relative openness and transparency of process may increase confidence in policy

continuity and public acceptability of proposed policies.

LIMITATIONS OF COLLABORATIVE PLANNING

Collaborative planning has, however, raised questions about how common values can

be forged and applied in a field of differences and power plays due to its idealism and

utopianism (Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger, 1998). These emphasise three sets of

issues in particular relation to the design of practice10.

The first issue is related to the construction of collaborative bodies. There is an

assumption that all stakeholders need to be included in the collaborative planning

process. This is essential to ensure that a discussion is well informed about the

positions and perspectives of the various parties. However, it is not clear who

establishes collaborative bodies, and how all stakeholders sharing a common purpose

can be identified and encouraged to get involved (Healey, 1998b).

10 See especially Healey (1997; 1998a; and 1998b), Innes and Booher (1999c), Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger (1998) and Meadowcroft (1998).

42


The second set of issues is related to the dynamics of the collaborative process. This

is mainly because interactive networks are difficult to establish in the tradition of

planning and political environment where hierarchies and markets are dominant. At

the heart of this argument is the observation that real world politics is not about

negotiation among equals, but power-centred interaction. Therefore, powerful actors

like state agencies, bureaucracies, business federations and multinationals can be

expected to dominate such collaborative bodies. There are also difficulties in

communication between a considerable number of players. This is mainly because of

the limited representation caused by diverse counterparts, technical complexity and

views of absent parties (Laws, 1999). Meadowcroft (1998) argues that such group-

based processes inevitably undermine genuine democratic government by transferring

important decisions away from ‘responsible officials’ into the hands of ‘pressure

group cartels’.

The third issue is the effectiveness of collaborative outcomes. The process of

collaboration itself is a positive outcome by developing a shared vision in a complex

policy and encouraging mutual learning. However, there are two questions can be

asked:

What guarantee is there that the outcomes that are ‘agreed’ really will address

adequately the grave social, economic and environmental problems they are

intended to solve?

Will not the negotiation process consume substantial resources of time and

energy, in order to produce a ‘lowest common denominator’ policy?

Although the outcomes of collaborative approaches are supposed to produce win-win

situations for all participants, there will always be winners and losers in such a

politicised arena as planning. Ideal discourses do not have a time limit, but planning

discourses do have (Reuter, 1999). Moreover, agreement between participants on the

benefits of a particular polity is only successful for that particular policy: it does not

mean that the same participants will readily agree to new forms of practices or work

for policy-making (Tewdwr-Jones and Allmendinger, 1998).

43


3.2.3 Collaborative Planning in Practice

PRAGMATIC MOTIVATIONS TOWARDS COLLABORATIONS

As discussed earlier, collaborative planning brings advantages to the planning

activities in modern society. In many practical situations, inter-organisational theory

identifies the pragmatic reasons for organisational collaborations. A review of the

literature on inter-organisational theories provides the following aspects that motivate

inter-organisational collaboration: common purpose; resource dependency; legal or

regulatory requirements; and legitimacy. Each of the determinants may be a separate

and sufficient cause for collaboration. However, the decision to collaborate with other

organisations is usually based on a combination of multiple determinants.

Firstly, pursuing common purpose is a widespread motivator influencing inter-

organisational collaboration. When organisations recognise some mutual need or

purpose, and organisational domains are not sensitive issues, inter-organisational

collaboration becomes more likely (Schermerhorn, 1975). Oliver (1990) determines

‘reciprocity’ as a critical contingency that motivates organisations to collaborate in

order to pursue common or mutually beneficial goals and interests. Moreover,

interdependence between organisations is also emphasised, as the mutual dependence

is created when organisations in different sectors need resources and services from

each other. Organisations choose to collaborate when they realise the interdependence

of their goals, and increased interdependencies lead to a greater need for intra- and

inter-organisational collaborations (Mulford and Rogers, 1982; and Owen, 1998).

Secondly, resource dependency induces organisations to seek out or be receptive to

inter-organisational collaborations (Schermerhorn, 1975; and Weiss, 1987). Halpert

(1982) argues that an organisation may voluntarily collaborate when faced with the

threat of resource loss among other things (i.e. autonomy, and task and power

domains) as a result of prevailing market and environmental conditions. Resource

dependency relationships may cause environmental uncertainty (Borys and Jemison,

1989; Provan, 1982). Collaboration helps organisations forestall, forecast, or absorb

uncertainty and achieve an orderly, reliable pattern of resource flows and exchanges.

However, Oliver (1990) points out that resource uncertainty may prompt

organisations to try to exert power, influence, or control over other organisations that

control their required scarce resources.

44


Thirdly, organisations sometimes co-operate in order to meet necessary legal or

regulatory requirements that are mandates from higher authorities (Oliver, 1990; and

Weiss, 1987). When a powerful force from external organisations demands

collaboration it is more likely to happen (Schermerhorn, 1975). However, Weiss

(1987) argues that legal requirements may be too weak to overcome the obstacles to

co-operation, if they stand alone without the reinforcement of political consensus,

standard procedures, pre-existing relationships, systematic enforcement or shared

moral codes.

Finally, organisations seek to increase their legitimacy to improve their reputation,

image, prestige, or to justify their activities or outputs in their institutional

environment. This encourages organisations to enter an inter-organisational relation

(Schermerhorn, 1975). Weiss (1987) believes that satisfying norms and values and

obtaining political advantage are motivations for public agencies to collaborate.

IMPLEMENTING COLLABORATIVE PLANNING

The major concern in collaborative planning theory in recent years has been to

develop a framework for applying the theory to practice. Patsy Healey (1997: pp268-

281) sets out four parameters of the institutional design for a collaborative form of

policy development and delivery: stakeholders and arenas; routines of organising and

styles of discussion; making policy discourses; and maintaining consensus.

Getting started: facilitators, stakeholders and arenas

A key task in this stage is to identify the stakeholders of the issue and establish an

‘institutional place’ with funding arrangement. Existing political and administrative

procedures may be part of the communication problem through their masking of

power relations and distorted communication. However, they can be changed when

there is the capacity to ‘read the cracks’ in the power relations, to see the

opportunities for ‘doing things differently’, and to be able to widen a crack into a real

potential for change. In this context, initiators have a critical responsibility for this

opening up stage.

45


Routines and styles of discussion

‘Opening out’ discussions to explore the identified problems enable learning about

each other’s interests. Healey identifies three particular aspects of this process that

require attention in terms of managing meetings. First is the style of discussion that

ensures everyone has a voice and is heard through sensitivity to cultural differences,

room arrangements, who speaks when and how. Second is the language that each

participant uses that gives respect to each other while avoiding ambiguous imagery or

misleading statements. Third is the representation, which refers to the different ways

in which participants are ‘called up’ to speak and to prevent those ‘not present’ from

being ‘absent’ from the discussion.

Making policy discourses

Discussions in conventional strategic planning exercises are translated into and

filtered through the technical planning arena. This structured analytical framework

translates a person’s speech into a ‘point’. However, discussions in a process of

collaborative approaches need to be less technical, much richer and more widely

shared to allow for different views to be maintained. If so, as Healey points out, how

can a strategy emerge from such an open process? The answer is not clear.

Nonetheless, it appears to rely on a collective decision-making process that does not

‘close off’ options but works through different scenarios and their consequences.

Maintaining the consensus

Effective consensus building is based on clear understanding of what a strategy means

and the reason for it. A collaborative process should aim to evolve participants’

activities flexibly, not to control and direct what they do. As new participants emerge

and situations change then the more formalised institutional arrangements become

useful in enforcing the consensus.

OUTCOMES OF COLLABORATIVE APPROACHES

Consensus building focuses on a process that individuals presenting differing interests

engage in long-term, face-to-face discussions, seeking agreement on strategies, plans,

policies and actions. Recognising that consensus building is a broad term

46


encompassing many types of collaborative efforts, Innes and Booher (1999b) develop

a framework for potential outcomes of collaborative approaches (Table 3.2).

Outcomes of consensus building are not just the productions of agreed strategies.

They argue that some of outcomes are direct effects that are immediately identifiable

at the end of the project (first order effects), for example high-quality agreement and

innovative strategies. These may also include social capital (trust and relationships),

intellectual capital (mutual understanding) and political capital (ability to work

together for common purpose). However, others may not be evident until some time

later (second and third order effects). It is not necessary for every outcome criterion to

be achieved to have a successful consensus building, as one or more criteria of the

outcomes may be particularly important in responding to the different political and

economic circumstances of the individual cases.

Table 3.0.8 Potential Outcomes of Consensus Building

First Order Effects Second Order Effects Third Order Effects

Social Capital: Trust, Relationships

Intellectual Capital: Mutual Understanding, Shared Problem Frames, Agreed Upon Data

Political Capital: Ability to Work Together for Agreed Ends

High-Quality Agreements

Innovative Strategies

New Partnerships

Co-ordination and Joint Action

Joint Learning Extends Into the Community

Implementation of Agreements

Changes in Practices

Changes in Perceptions

New Collaborations

More Coevolution, Less Destructive Conflict

Results on the Ground: Adaptation of Cities, Regions, Resources, Services

New Institutions

New Norms and Heuristics

New Discourses

Source: Innes and Booher (1999b: p419)

47


3.3 Instrument for Collaborative Planning: Partnerships

The arguments in the face of power in planning practice might be taken to suggest

that ‘government’ (which can enforce compliance) is more reliable rather than

‘negotiation’ in delivering policy goals. But this has a set of presumptions: 1)

government already understands the problems; 2) government can decide how to

distribute the burdens of adjustment; and 3) government is able to implement

solutions without the co-operation of other external planning bodies. However, it is

simply not true. Meadowcroft (1998) argues that it can be only achieved through

engagement with groups representing different aspects of an issue and various

political dimensions of a problem. In this context, a hypothesis in this thesis is that a

partnership approach may be a suitable for instrument implementing collaborative

planning in conjunction with multiple actors in practice.

3.3.1 Partnerships towards Collaborative Planning

A DEFINITION OF PARTNERSHIP

Although it is evident that a partnership instrument is needed for the implementation

of collaborative planning, there are arguments that the partnership has been dismissed

as ‘containing a high level of ambiguity’ (MacKintosh, 1992) and ‘a meaningless

concept’ (Lawless, 1991). This is partly because of its loose application to a wide

variety of policy initiatives by both advocates and critics (Bailey, 1995). As Lawless

points out, ‘there is no legal definition of partnership, nor is there anything we can

call the “typical” partnership’ (Lawless, 1991). This is because many partnerships

emerge spontaneously from the need to progress. Moreover, theoretical frameworks

for understanding partnerships are not well developed (MacKintosh, 1992).

In this research a partnership has been defined as a coalition of different organisations

in order to achieve a common purpose and shared vision of a defined area. An

effective partnership cannot be dominated by any of its member organisations in

decision-making, and the existence of the partnership does not affect the statutory

powers and obligations of its member organisations. The term ‘different

organisations’ distinguishes a partnership from a ‘network’; the latter is described as

an individual based relationship (Table 3.3). In comparison to the networks,

48


partnerships focus on organisational relationships based on formal agreement within a

clearly defined boundary. There is also a moral dimension that distinguishes

partnerships in town planning from business collaboration in the market place. This is

the aspiration to further public interests rather than private gain.

Table 3.0.9 The Features of Networks and Partnerships

Network Partnership

Focus Individual relationships Organisational relationships

Motivation Voluntaristic Voluntaristic or imposed

Boundary Indistinct Clear

Composition Fluid Stable

Membership Defined by self and/or others Defined by formal agreement

Formalisation Low High

Source: Lowndes et al. (1997)

A common structure of partnerships is illustrated in Figure 3.1. A partnership, service

provider, delivers its programme through a range of member partners that may

include public/private sectors, professional services and user groups. In order to co-

ordinate the overall partnership activities, a facilitating body is needed. This

facilitating body is usually in a form of a committee or working group involving

representatives from member partners. When a partnership involves a considerable

number of representatives, the facilitating body may be divided into several sub-

groups.

49


Figure 3.0.6 A Common Structure of Partnerships

Provider

FacilitatingBody

Service

Privatesector

Publicsector

Professionalservices

Usergroup

Source: Muir and Rance (1995: p128)

The definition of partnership in this research is intended to indicate not only urban

regeneration partnerships but also social and environmental partnerships. The

definition emphasises that a partnership provides the basis for a collaborative

approach by bringing together stakeholders who are working for a common purpose.

However, the partnership approach toward collaborative planning in a real-life

context is more complex and abstruse.

THE RISE OF THE PARTNERSHIP APPROACH

The apparent and changing nature of the partnership approach must be seen in line

with the changes in political, economic and social environments in the UK. As

discussed earlier, the fundamental changes that are apparent in relation to partnership

working are economic restructuring and the centralisation of state power during the

late 1970s and into the 1980s11.

Economic decline and growing levels of unemployment brought major political

changes, such as the centralisation and privatisation of urban policy in the 1980s

(Bailey, 1995; and Boyle, 1993). Those are closely associated with Thatcherism

shifting the balance of power between central and local government through diluting

the powers of the big Labour-controlled Metropolitan authorities (Report of the

Commission for Social Justice, 1994). Privatisation affected in particular the public 11 See Table 2.3 ‘The Trend of Governance in the UK, in Chapter 2.

50


utilities of greatest importance for planning and the development of land, such as gas,

water and electricity, and later, much of transport (Davies, 1998).

Powers and finance of local government had gradually moved to central government.

Major services, which were under local government in the 1970s, such as strategic

planning, transport, education and housing, were taken over by central government.

These services have transferred to central government departments, quangos (quasi-

autonomous national government organisations) or special agencies accountable to

central government. As Bailey (1995) argues, the creation of Urban Development

Corporations (UDCs) is the best example of the increased government centralisation

by engaging the private sector. As the UDCs were designed to exclude local

authorities, the UDCs forged a new exclusive alliance between central government

and major private property developers.

As the leadership of local government was taken over by the central government,

local authorities sought new institutional arrangements that could increase their

influence and the leverage with limited funds and resources. Local authorities have

regarded partnerships as one way in which these two objectives could be achieved

(Bailey, 1995). Since the early 1990s, local authorities have increasingly welcomed

the need for partnership, and the partnership approach has been a more acceptable part

of government policy. Local authorities recognised that their position has changed

from that of a passive service provider to being an ‘enabler’, leading co-ordination of

new policies and strategies for economic development in partnership with other

agencies (Keating, 1991). Many local authorities had also learnt how to operate a

plan-led system in a market economy (Davies, 1998).

Apart from the need for partnerships from the viewpoint of local authorities,

partnerships have arguably been seen as an institutional arrangement leading to

synergy12 that is a possible solution to tackling complex urban problems. Many

researchers, such as Shields (1995), argue that the contemporary urban environments

are variegated so that there is the need for multi-dimensional approach, and such

changes have been accelerated by globalisation (Amin and Graham, 1997). There is

now a widespread acknowledgement that urban problems are no longer solvable by

traditional state intervention and agencies. The proposition is simply that complex 12 Synergy means that the whole is being greater than the sum of the parts. Working together in developing and implementing a common strategy can increase effort and effectiveness, utilise local knowledge, and bring to bear the skills and expertise of all sectors (Haughton and Whitney, 1989).

51


problems demand complex agencies to solve them, as Newman and Verpraet stressed,

and they add:

Partnership processes seem well suited to this restructuring of

cities, by integrating capital, leading sectors and favoured social

groups in specific locations. In addition to this vertical integration

of projects, partnerships also fragment decision-making across

space and can be argued to be better suited to such selective

restructuring than older forms of territorial management. We

support the view that there is a direct link between socially and

economically fragmented cities and new forms of governance.

(Newman and Verpraet, 1999: p488)

It seems that partnerships are widely accepted in the practice of planning as a

particular instrument for tackling complex urban problems caused by the traditional

fragmentary governing structure. It is now clear that “a concern with partnerships is

best situated in the context of these broader trends [challenge of collective action] in

governing and public management” (Stoker, 1997: p35). Partnerships are

consequently recognised as a possible service delivery method for collaborative

planning style that emphasises co-operation and co-ordination in modern societies.

Partnerships are, however, one of many possible instruments that a government would

employ in order to achieve its policy goals. There is, then, anther question that may be

asked. Why might the partnership approach be chosen as a particular instrument for

collaborative planning over all the others?

PARTNERSHIP INSTRUMENTS FOR COLLABORATIVE PLANNING

To answer this question, a considerable amount of research has been focused on

theorising the characteristics of partnerships by distinguishing from other forms of

public organisations. MacKintosh (1992) has established three characteristics of the

partnership approach13:

synergy, where more can be achieved by two or more sectors working together

than separately;

13 Her work has been developed further by other researchers, for example Bailey (1994; and 1995) and Hastings (1996).

52


transformation, which is a process whereby partners seek to change or

challenge the aims and operating cultures of other partners; and

budget enlargement, which assumes that a primary reason why organisations

form partnerships is to extract additional resources from other parties.

In line with these, the following set of characteristics of the partnership instrument

have been identified for a more comprehensive explanation of the reason for making

partnerships desirable in the collaborative model.

Firstly, partnerships may produce additional assets, skills and powers through

synergy. Hastings (1996) argues that added value from sharing resources and from

joint efforts of agencies may increase effectiveness or efficiency of policy outcomes.

The principle of synergy, which is the essence of partnerships, reinforces the point

that a partnership approach is a desirable instrument for the collaborative model.

Another argument related to synergy is that partnerships appear to involve less

government coercion than do other possible modes of public sector intervention

(Woodside, 1986). Partnerships are more likely to be voluntary agreements between

the several actors, making them less coercive than an attempt on the part of

government to achieve the same goals through regulatory activities or direct public

provision of services (Peters, 1997). Considering the principle of subsidiarity14 has

been emphasised, especially in European regions (Armstrong, 1993), public

perception is a crucial element for any instrument of modern governance. In

partnerships, the public sense of lower levels of coercion may be more important than

any other public organisations (Peters, 1997). This may result in wider involvement

from various interests in decision-making, and this is a fundamental principle of the

collaborative model.

Secondly, mutual transformation is the outcome that is modified through negotiation.

Partnerships are arenas of bargaining, lobbying and negotiation about purpose and

objectives, and broad parameters of agreement need to be established quickly if

results are to be achieved (Bailey, 1995). Therefore partnerships may lead to quicker

consensus building between partners than other forms of public organisation so as to

achieve the common goal quickly.

14 “Subsidiarity asserts that no responsibility should be located at a higher level than is necessary” (DETR, 1999: p12).

53


Through this collaborative process, as Peters (1997) argues, partnerships enable

programmes to escape from the political and bureaucratic processes that might cause

slow progress on decision-making or make a programme impossible to implement. In

the bureaucratic process, significant legal restraints on the procedures of programmes

are important parts of implementing programmes. In a partnership arrangement,

however, those procedural demands can be loosened substantially, and quicker and

possibly more effective decisions can be made. Partnerships may be able to evade

unwanted controls much more readily than the manager of a ‘normal’ public

organisation. Therefore, the partnership may provide an executive capacity for

collaborative efforts that could not be achieved under political and bureaucratic

processes.

Thirdly, budget enlargement may secure more accessible resources by building

commitment through leverage (Brindley et al. 1989). Partnerships can be cost-

effective when compared to other possible means of achieving the same goals. This

means that the cost of providing the same service will be less for each side of the

arrangement than it would if it were providing the service alone. Moreover,

partnerships can be a useful tool through which to gain access to the resources and

skills of other agencies (Hutchinson, 1995). Evidence of partnership formation is

required notably in order to bid for funds from both central government and European

Union resources (Coulson, 1997; Painter and with Clarence, 2001).

3.3.2 Conceptualising Partnerships

MODES OF GOVERNANCE

As discussed earlier, a partnership instrument is relatively desirable for implementing

collaborative approaches. Although MacKintosh’s work is helpful in understanding

the characteristics of partnership, it has limitations in describing how a partnership

works in a real-life context. To develop a more reliable framework for the partnership

approach, this research essentially focuses on modes of governance, which were

discussed in Section 2.2.3, Chapter 2.

In the practice of planning, a particular set of institutional arrangements may be

associated with a variety of modes of governance, and it includes partnerships. As a

simple explanation, partnerships possess a combination of three modes of governance,

54


markets, hierarchies and networks. Although all three modes of governance are

playing important roles, partnerships have a particularly affinity with network modes

of governance (Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998). This is because partnerships are based

on synergy and transformation and emphasise co-operation between actors. However,

market and hierarchy modes of governance are also important in terms of the budget

enlargement of partnerships.

Figure 3.2 illustrates a concept of partnership instrument in relation to modes of

governance. In conventional planning exercises, the inter-organisational relationship

is rather based on hierarchies (central-local governments) and markets (business

collaboration). This is because network modes tend to be limited within a single

organisation (‘organisational unit’ in Figure 3.2). Once a partnership is established, a

network mode of governance can be easily developed between different organisations

within a partnership boundary. Hierarchies in the partnerships may establish more

formalised institutional arrangements. Markets lead to budget enlargement of the

partnerships. Networks enable collaboration between different organisational units.

55


Figure 3.0.7 A Concept of Partnership: Markets, Hierarchies and Networks

Market

Hie

rarc

hy

Partnership

Unit 4

Unit 3

Unit 2

Unit 1

Network Market

Hierarchy

Network

Partnership

OrganisationalUnit

Source: Author

A TYPOLOGY OF PARTNERSHIPS

There are a considerable number of different kinds of partnership typology (Bailey,

1995; Foley and Hutchinson, 1994; RTPI, 1998). Among those, the work of Bailey

(1995) is recognised as a relatively comprehensive set, and can be seen in Table 3.4.

He has identified six different types of partnership arrangements (development

partnership; development trust; joint agreement, coalition and company; promotional

partnership; agency partnership; and strategy partnership) based on four variables

(mobilisation; area of coverage; range of partners; and remit).

56


Table 3.0.10 A Typology of Partnership: The Work of Nick Bailey

Type Mobilisation Area of coverage Range of partners RemitDevelopment Locally Single site or

small area, e.g. town centre

Private developer, housing associations, local authority

Joint development to mutual advantage

Development trust

Locally Neighbourhood Community-based with LA & other representatives

Community-based regeneration

Joint agreement, coalition, company

Locally but may be in response to national policy

Clearly defined area for regeneration

Public, private, and sometimes voluntary

Preparation of formal/ informal strategy. Implementation often through third parties.

Promotional Locally, e.g. by Chamber of Commerce

District or city-wide

Private sector-led. Sponsored by Chamber of Commerce or development agency

Place marketing, promotion of growth and investment

Agency Nationally based on legislative powers

Urban, or sub-regional

Public sector sponsored with private sector appointees

Terms of reference from sponsoring agency

Strategic Regional, county, local

sub-regional, metropolitan

All sectors Determining broad strategy for growth & development & accessing EU funds

Source: Adapted from Bailey (1995)

Although his work helps to understand the different types of partnership currently in

existence, there is still duplication between categories and areas that the categories

cannot cover. For example, there is no clear category that associates with nationally

based environmental partnerships such as the Urban Wildlife Partnership15. This kind

of partnership is based nationally and locally and aims to work for nature

conservation in a wider spectrum rather than to benefit a particular local area. This is

partly because the Bailey’s work tends to focus on partnerships that involve economic

regeneration, but it is mainly due to the fluid and ambiguous nature of partnerships.

All partnerships operate differently in practice. These are influenced by the

geographical location in which they operate, the nature of the activities they

undertake, and their membership and organisational structure (RTPI, 1998).

Therefore, it is almost impossible to establish a firm set of partnership types. Larger

numbers of categories and variables do not guarantee a clearer typology. By 15 The Urban Wildlife Partnership was founded in 1985 to create a better future for wildlife and people in towns and cities throughout the UK. The Partnership is a network of urban wildlife groups, Wildlife Trusts, Local Authorities, Groundwork Trusts, Community Groups, Community Forests and other local and regional environmental organisations in the UK.

57


recognising these arguments, this research establishes a simple typology of

partnerships that broadly categorises two types of partnerships, collaborative

partnerships and partial partnerships. These categories are essentially focused on the

nature of governance (interdependence and diversity) and modes of governance

(markets, networks and hierarchies).

A collaborative partnership is basically an ideal model of partnership, which meets

both prominent interdependence and diversity. In terms of modes of governance, a

collaborative partnership should be able to represent and balance all modes of

governance. Under the general concept of partnership, this research defines

collaborative partnerships as those promoting development, which is compatible with

and meets all the following criteria:

1. The need to bring together all interest groups involved in the development and

work to their mutual benefit.

2. The need to establish an integrated vision that is accepted and understood by

all who are involved.

3. The requirement to include the development process as a whole in order to

inter-relate all elements, the natural environment, society and economy.

The first criterion highlights the point that the structure of a collaborative partnership

should enable the partners to work to their mutual benefit as equal partners. This

emphasises balancing powers between partners who are involved throughout all

modes of governance. The second criterion is to establish the interdependence so as to

develop an integrated vision that emphasises the need for efficient, reliable

information sharing between partners. The third criterion underlines diversity of

governance in modern society, which requires a more holistic approach for

sustainability leading to the harmonisation of economic, social and environmental

decision-making (Kidd and Shaw, 2000).

Partial partnerships are those that fail to satisfy one or more of above three criteria

for the collaborative partnership definition. With reference to modes of governance, a

partial partnership is one that is biased towards one or two modes of governance, so

the implementation of partnership is not based on all three modes. For example, a

market mode of governance is dominant in ‘promotional partnerships (Bailey, 1995)’,

which are initiated largely by private business interests. ‘Informal partnerships (RTPI,

58


1998)’ are characterised as informal groupings of members with similar interests that

are mostly associated with network modes of governance. In the case of hierarchies,

‘joint committees (RTPI, 1998)’ may be an example. This type is a mechanism that

can be used to develop partnerships working between local authorities under the

powers conferred to them in S102 (iv) of the Local Government Act 1972.

3.3.3 A Life Cycle of Partnerships

Despite a partnership having multiple modes of governance, the selection between

modes of governance is a matter of practicality to meet particular political and

economic circumstances that the partnership faces (Kickert et al. 1997).

Consequently, it is assumed that different modes of governance may be required at

different stages of the partnership life cycle. In line with this, Lowndes and Skelcher

(1998) have identified a life cycle of partnerships based on contrasts between modes

of governance, which typically has four stages (Table 3.5). These are pre-partnership

collaboration, partnership creation and consolidation, partnership programme

delivery, and partnership termination or succession16.

The pre-partnership collaboration stage requires networking between stakeholders,

which is rather based on informality and trust, and willingness to collaborate to

achieve a common purpose. The partnership creation and consolidation stage needs to

structure a hierarchical framework for formalised decision-making procedure, and

requires a market approach to allocate funding for the partnership establishment. The

partnership programme delivery stage requires a systematic co-ordination between

hierarchies (regulation and supervision of contractors), markets (bids and

management of expenditure programme) and networks (informal agreements to

negotiate complexities of contracts). In the partnership termination and succession

stage, networking is once more important to maintain the partnership’s commitment

and encourage potential for a future collaboration after the termination of the

partnership.

16 The four stages of partnership life cycle, which are discussed in this section, draw heavily on the work of Lowndes and Skelcher (1998). However, their work tends to focus on public-private partnerships of urban regeneration projects at local level. Therefore, some contents have been modified to support a wider view of partnership definition in this research, which takes into account of social, economic, environmental and political contexts.

59


Table 3.0.11 Networks, Markets and Hierarchies in a Partnership Life Cycle

Stage in the Life Cycle

Mode of Governance

Relationship between Stakeholder

Pre-partnership Collaboration

Networking between individuals/ organisations.

Informality, trust and co-operation.Willingness to work together to achieve collective purpose.Differential resources result in emergence of inner and outer networks, with some actors becoming marginalised.

Partnership Creation and Consolidation

Hierarchy incorporating some organisations.Formalisation of authority in partnership board and associated staff.

Negotiation and contest over definition of membership and allocation of board seats.Disruption of network as informal balance of power codified.Informal systems and agreements are replaced by hierarchical structure with formalised procedures and decisions.

Partnership Programme Delivery

Market mechanisms of tendering and contractual agreements.Regulation and supervision of contractors.Networking assists in production of bids and management of expenditure programme.

Low co-operation between providers.Purchasers’ suspicion of over-selling by potential providers.Distinction between inner and outer network sharpens as partnership determines agreed bids and/ or fund allocation. Reliance on informal agreements within network to negotiate complexities of contracts. Emergence of trust-based contracting with some organisations.

Partnership Termination and Succession

Networking between individuals/ organisations as means to maintain agency commitment, community involvement and staff employment.

Uncertainty as network stability afforded by partnership comes to an end.Potential for new openness/ expansion of links.Trust and informality, with negotiation and contest concerning strategic role of partnership.

Source: Adapted from Lowndes and Skelcher (1998)

PRE-PARTNERSHIP COLLABORATION

Pre-partnership collaboration is characterised by informality and a stress on personal

relationships based on network modes of governance. The quality of relationships is

linked to the level of trust between actors and the extent to which interaction is seen

as leading to mutual benefit. The expectation of mutual benefit is seen as crucial in

pre-partnership collaboration. When there is a greater trust, a wider group of

individuals tend to be involved, allowing for a greater variety of inputs, a more

efficient use of resources, and a broader sense of ownership. These relationships are

built out of a combination of ‘vision’ and ‘cost-benefit analysis’. Vision is important

in gaining the commitment of partners, while cost benefit analysis determines whether

relationships will be maintained over time. Market-like cost-benefit calculations are

60


also important for individual agencies in deciding whether or not to invest in potential

partnership opportunities.

Through informal networks, information can pass more freely (Innes, 1999a). The

information may reach key stakeholders in this stage, but this seems not to guarantee

their active involvement to the partnership. Another significant issue at this stage is

that networks make it hard for newcomers to break into existing groups by

establishing the reliance on social contact, unwritten roles or informal codes of

conduct (Powell, 1991).

PARTNERSHIP CREATION AND CONSOLIDATION

Partnership creation and consolidation is characterised by the increased importance of

hierarchy as a mode of governance. Informal network relationships, however,

continued to be of considerable significance. Formalisation at this stage is linked to

increased transparency and clearer accountability in terms both of accessing funds,

but also of ensuring probity and effective implementation structures. The setting up of

some kind of bureaucracy - with clear roles, responsibilities and reporting lines - is

necessary at this stage. This is because it moves from a concern with exchanging

information and ideas to a focus on project or policy implementation. Partnership

creation involves negotiation and determines amongst other things, which

stakeholders will have representatives on the board. This stage also focuses on a

particular issue like the allocation of seats to a board or management committee.

In establishing a partnership structure, it should be also noted that a partnership

creation does not guarantee the presence of networking (Powell, 1991). There is the

need to negotiate across organisational boundaries and cultures in order to establish

reliable networking. Because hierarchies become more visible in the process of

partnership creation, the voluntary and community sectors are often relegated to the

periphery.

61


PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME DELIVERY

Partnership programme delivery is characterised by the co-ordination between all

modes of governance, market, hierarchy and network, although Lowndes and

Skelcher (1998) place particular emphasis on a market-style mode of governance.

They have underlined the fact that inter-agency working involves a high degree of

competition among organisations. Competition exists between stakeholders in the

bidding process for central government schemes. Such competition is to stimulate

partnerships to develop innovative and cost-effective programmes of work, and to

ensure the fund provider receives value for money and maximum programme

effectiveness. A negative effect of the competition is, however, that a partnership

might succeed in spending money without reaping the potential gains of collaborative

working. A market mode of governance is emphasised particularly in the practice of

urban regeneration partnerships that may be keen at profit or commercial advantage.

Together with market modes of governance, networks are also highlighted at this

stage with reference to sustainability. The tensions between market and network

modes of governance are clear, particularly the potential for market-style of

relationships to undermine trust, mutuality and co-operation between partners.

Importance of networks is particularly emphasised in non-profit partnerships and

those working for sustainability such as environment or social partnerships. These

partnerships may include, for example, nature conservation partnerships, crime

prevention partnerships, and recreation-related partnerships. Hierarchy modes of

governance also associate in this stage in terms of regulatory and administrative

matters of overall programme implementation.

PARTNERSHIP TERMINATION OR SUCCESSION

Partnership termination or succession is characterised by a re-assertion of a network

co-ordination mode as a means to maintain agency commitment, community

involvement and staff employment. As Hay (1998) argues, a network mode of

governance may well continue to linger on long after the partnership termination; that

its strategic significance has been dissipated and the principal strategic attentions of

its nominal participants directed elsewhere. Networks may enable to carry out the role

of partnership to be carried on even after the termination. While partnership

62


termination seems to be very much dependent on the nature of the initiative that

employs the strategy (Maybury, 1998), partnerships tend to take one of following

stances (Sullivan and Lowndes, 1996 quoted in Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998).

The first option is to ‘keep the partnership going’. Those who wish to keep a formal

partnership in place after funding ceases are driven by a brief that either (a) valuable

relationships have been built and might perish without a formal framework; or (b)

specific partnership outputs needs managing and developing beyond the life of the

funded partnership; or (c) the locality continues to have pressing social and economic

needs despite the funded intervention and that a continued partnership would help to

keep attention focused area.

Secondly, termination can end up with a ‘let it die peacefully’ strategy. Those who

want to close up the partnership tend to keep a structure and a programme going with

dedicated budgets. Behind this kind of termination, the assumption is that the goal of

partnership is to empower community groups by building capacity to manage their

local environments.

Finally, a partnership may conclude to ‘support what lasts’ strategy. This cluster of

views is in a middle way of the previous two exit strategies. This strategy may be

chosen when the importance of sustaining the partnership commitments has been

recognised, but there is a shortage of funds. The stress in this strategy is on seeking

support from mainstream local budgets for focal points of activity in the locality so as

to allow co-ordination to arise from informal networks.

3.4 Conclusion

This chapter explored the notion of collaborative planning theory and instrumental

arrangements for implementing collaborative approaches. There is an extensive

literature on the need for collaborative approaches and factors contributing to an

effective collaboration. However, there is relatively not much research and knowledge

on implementation of collaborative planning in the practice of planning. Despite the

operational difficulties of collaborative approaches, it is important to note that

collaborative planning is not envisaged as a replacement for the entire structure of the

existing planning system. Rather it is a flexible management mechanism, which can

be grafted onto existing systems of policy-making and administration. Collaborative

63


planning is not intended radically to displace other forms of planning styles, but rather

to supplement these. The real question is not whether collaborative planning has

problems, drawbacks, and dangers, but whether in particular contexts it may achieve

more satisfactory results than traditional regulatory approaches (Meadowcroft, 1998).

Partnership instruments have been identified as one of the desirable institutional

arrangements for collaborative approaches. Changing patterns of partnerships are

obviously emerging with the changing of the planning pattern in the UK. From the

mid-1980s property boom, public and private sectors had co-operated on large-scale

urban projects. However, as Newman and Verpraet (1999) mention, the new

partnerships in the 1990s tend not to be mechanisms of planned restructuring but

rather they target hot spots in the new urban economy. The emphasis of partnership

arrangements has been shifted to cover a wider range of issues than merely property

development (O'Toole and Usher, 1992). Although there is an emphasis on

collaborative partnerships in the mid-1990s, it should be noted that there is the need

for both collaborative and partial partnerships to tackle different types of urban

problems. This is because “there are no single model for the correct form of

partnership”(RTPI, 1998: p10), but the form of collaborative partnerships has been

necessary in order to tackle the complexity of modern society.

64

Chapter Four: Designing an Institutional Arrangement for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation

Chapter Four:

Designing an Institutional Arrangement

for Integrated Waterside Revitalisation

65


4.1 Introduction

Previous chapters discussed the need for collaborative approach in implementing

integrated waterside revitalisation. An institutional arrangement for waterside

revitalisation needs to be a place for communication and building networks between

participants. The need to plan and manage ecosystems as a whole and to develop

integrated policies has been widely acknowledged17. It is clear that waterside

revitalisation requires collaborative planning approaches. Together with the advent of

the sustainability concept, there is a growing recognition of the need for cross-sectoral

and multi-level co-operation in economic, social and environmental decision-making.

Such ideas direct environmental planning and management towards the engagement

of many organisations and individuals not previously directly concerned with

environmental matters (Kidd and Shaw, 2000). A river basin boundary as an

ecosystem, in particular, almost never corresponds to its administrative boundaries,

and consequently, it causes operational difficulties in an effort to incorporate the

fragmented administrative structure.

Drawn from previous chapters, this chapter intends to establish an appropriate

institutional arrangement for integrated waterside revitalisation and develop key

aspects for each stage of the institutional life cycle. This chapter can be broadly

divided into two parts. The first part investigates advantages and limitations of

collaborative planning in engaging in the practice of waterside revitalisation. The

second part of the chapter develops an institutional arrangement for the collaborative

partnership approach to achieve integrated waterside revitalisation. This consists of

each stage of the life cycle of partnership: pre-partnership collaboration, partnership

creation and consolidation, partnership programme delivery, and partnership

termination.

17 See, particularly, Grumbine (1994), Rabe (1986), Slocombe (1993) and Sparks (1995).

66


4.2 Engaging Collaborative Planning to Waterside Revitalisation

4.2.1 Advantages in the Context of Waterside Revitalisation

The advantages identified in engaging the concept of collaborative planning to

waterside revitalisation are summarised under two headings: sustainability issues and

geographical boundaries.

First, because the waterside issues are related to sustainability, the common purpose

between stakeholders can be readily built. The waterside issues are diverse and

complex. Considering the fact that waterside revitalisation is needed an effort to

incorporate the principles of sustainable development, common purposes for

watersides should involve the co-operation between economic, environmental and

social issues18. The concept of sustainable development is now firmly on the agenda

of waterside revitalisation. As sustainability is the “1990s fever” in the practice of

planning, especially environmental management, this may enable waterside

stakeholders to generally agree on a common purpose of sustainability in waterside

revitalisation. This sustainability-related common purpose may also encourage wider

involvement ranging from public agencies to local interest groups. Another advantage

related to sustainability is that the discourse arena is less likely to be dominated by

powerful agencies. This is because sustainability issues are less likely to generate

tensions between stakeholders, and there are no obvious stakes involving political

and/or economic resources to compete for.

Second, a certain geographical boundary, such as a river basin, helps focus on

particular issues and emphasise on area-based targets. One policy area where

networking and developing new patterns of collaborative planning is an explicit

theme is the Local Agenda 21 process (Selman and Parker, 1997; and Young, 1996).

In many cases, though, the LA 21 can “degenerate into more traditional forms of

participation activity and stall on the hard conflicts that are encapsulated within the

concept of sustainable development between equity, economic and environmental

agenda” (Rydin, 1998: p118). When collaborative planning engages in the waterside,

it has got a certain geographical boundary such as a river basin. It helps identify who

are the stakeholders in relevant interests, develop what are the issues to tackle in a

concrete waterside environment, and gain local knowledge of the waterside.

18 See Section 2.4.1, Principles for Waterside Revitalisation, in Chapter 2.

67


Therefore, targeting waterside issues may promote more focused efforts rather than

strategies covering wide-ranging sustainability issues.

4.2.2 Limitations in the Context of Waterside Revitalisation

There are two arguable issues in applying the collaborative concept to waterside

issues.

Firstly, sustainability issues are not the top priority of all waterside stakeholders,

although sustainability may promote wider involvement from various waterside

stakeholders. However, the common purposes based on sustainability - which raises

philosophical and conceptual issues - are difficult to generate commitment from

stakeholders, although the word, sustainability, is also used often for reasons for

political expediency. Generally speaking, conflict potentially increases when there is:

1) high goal incompatibility; 2) high activity interdependence; and 3) limited

resources to compete (Schmidt et al., 1986). The issues of sustainability may create

common purposes and require comprehensive interactions between participants.

However, sustainability does not generate obvious tensions between players to

compete for limited resources. The main procedures of the British planning system

have been varying emphasis on economic development or social issues (Rydin, 1998).

The high costs of taking no action can be the incentive to collaborate (Gary, 1989),

but sustainability may not stress threat or scarcity of resource loss among participants.

This lack of tension between stakeholders around waterside issues makes difficult to

encourage them to put their extra time, money and efforts into revitalisation.

Secondly, traditional compartmental approaches to environmental planning and

management in the UK (Rydin, 1998) may be another obstacle to collaboration.

Therefore, inclusion of all affected stakeholders can be one of the serious difficulties

in achieving effective collaborative efforts in waterside revitalisation. Moreover,

revitalising watersides leading environmental issues has been traditionally treated in a

top-down approach. Hence, community stewardship issues in waterside management

have not fully developed, and this is a fundamental weakness of a top-down approach

(Paton and Emerson, 1988). This may concern community participation on waterside

revitalisation. Community-based regeneration cannot work effectively when it

operates at a large geographical area and a large number of interests (Johnston, 1999;

68


McArthur, 1993) such as waterside management. This is because environmental

improvement, especially water quality improvement, takes a long time, and should be

based on a long-term management strategy on a broader scale. However, these

organisations are mostly small and short of personnel and resources. A community-

based organisation needs clearly focused targets which are hooks for facilitating

community actions such as preventing crimes or enhance services because they aim to

‘do a few things well in a short period’ (Ward and Watson, 1997).

4.3 Designing a Collaborative Partnership for Revitalising

Watersides

It is now clear that a collaborative partnership approach is a possible institutional

arrangement for waterside revitalisation. However, a collaborative partnership is a

relatively new concept and its theoretical framework has not been clearly developed.

Consequently, some operational problems have been identified with particular

reference to the idealism of collaborative theory itself. Therefore, this section intends

to establish an institutional framework for collaborative partnership through a life

cycle of partnerships in revitalising the waterside.

4.3.1 Pre-partnership Collaboration

BUILDING COMMON PURPOSE

Building common purpose is essential in pre-partnership collaboration stage, as

Lowndes and Skelcher (1998: p332) quote, “once common interest falters, the

partnership’s done”. Building common purpose emphasises achieving each

stakeholders’ goals and capacity building of organisations analysing whether the

outcomes satisfies the real issues in dispute. Common purposes on waterside issues

need the sustainability concept that can be seen as the ‘1990s fever’. Consequently,

building common purposes may be straightforward. Generally speaking, building

common purpose must start from identifying problems. This is because participants

would never agree on the solution, if they do not agree on the problems. In this

context, Innes (1998) emphasises the importance of joint fact-finding, in which

stakeholders and experts work together to collect and analyse information.

69


IDENTIFYING KEY STAKEHOLDERS

Not involving key stakeholders is one of the serious limitations to effective

collaborative processes by reducing power to implement the agreements(Gary, 1989;

and Owen, 1998). MacKenzie (1996) identifies that participation of appropriate actors

is one of requirements to the success of ecosystem management. It is clear that wider

stakeholder involvement in the planning, decision-making and implementation stages

is one of primary principles contributing to effective collaborative approaches.

As most institutional innovations start off in an informal context (Innes et al. 1994;

and Ostrom, 1990), this stage tends to be reliant on personal networks. A key role of

networks in identifying stakeholders is to facilitate wider exchanges of information so

as to stimulate wider involvement. However, networking cannot be formalised into

rules or procedures. Networking activities are undertaken by individuals and are

reliant upon their personal motivation and skill. Lowndes, Nanton, McCabe and

Skelcher (1997) argue that networks are facilitated where individuals have worked

together in previous situations, in ‘the same (or linked) organisations’, or within ‘the

same geographical area’. A possible way to identify more comprehensive

stakeholders is to involve existing local area-based networks or organisations at an

early stage so as to arrange initial contacts to stakeholders within the particular

waterside area.

4.3.2 Collaborative Partnership Creation and Consolidation

DESIGNING A FACILITATING BODY

After establishing common purposes, participants regard development of new

decision-making structures as central to the management effort (Yaffee et al. 1996).

A partnership generally runs through a facilitating body19. Establishing a suitable

institutional structure of facilitating body at an early stage can prevent many

difficulties that may arise later. The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI, 1998)

addresses the management structures that need to be considered and agreed before the

partnership is formed. The structures need also to be reviewed at regular intervals.

RTPI (1998: p37) identifies key considerations for the structure of the facilitating

body:

19 See Figure 3.1 A Common Structure of Partnerships, in Section 3.3.1, Chapter 3.

70


the role of the Board/Steering Group;

the role of the Chairperson;

responsibilities of Board/Steering Group Members;

roles of observers;

management meetings;

number and frequency of Board/Steering Group meetings;

conflicts of interest;

developing sub-groups;

the role and responsibilities of any Secretariat; and

the role and responsibilities of partners.

Ideally, working committees should never be larger than 30 people, with 20 or fewer a

much more desirable size (Heathcote, 1998). This is because larger committees are

difficult to administer (for instance, in arranging meetings) and the difficulties of

communicating across the space they must occupy. Larger committees often tend to

splinter into small discussion groups rather than to function as a single unit. Smaller

committees are also better able to build strong working relationships (networks) that

are essential in collaborative processes and produce useful outcomes.

In terms of the rule of practice (or rules of game) within an organisation (Clegg,

1989), rules tend to be determined by the market in which an organisation operates,

but also in part by the hierarchical power within the organisation resulting form the

specific alliances and strategies constructed (Atkinson, 1999). Those market and

hierarchical modes of governance in partnerships drive their objectives and tasks. As

these may be determined by most powerful partner organisations, collaborative

benefits can be limited. When a partnership covers a larger geographical scale and

deals with complexity (as it does in the case of waterside revitalisation partnerships),

it tends to divide the facilitating body into several sub-groups. Because those

facilitating bodies are formally structured, hierarchy modes of governance are needed

in building relationships between different facilitating bodies or sub-committees. The

multi-level management structure of partnerships should also ensure the environment

for communication and co-operation between different bodies or sub-committees.

71


INVOLVING FORMAL MEMBERSHIPS

Formal memberships involve partners who are members of administrative structures

such as committees or working groups within the partnership. Although most of the

key stakeholders can be identified, encouraging them to take an active part in a

partnership is another problematic aspect. A collaborative partnership approach can

be established based on its reciprocity and synergy. However, sustainability is not the

top priority of all waterside stakeholders and there are no high costs of taking no

action, as discussed in Section 4.2.2. The sustainability issues of waterside

revitalisation may not generate stakeholders’ commitments to become involved,

especially, within the traditional fragmentary approach of environmental management

in the UK.

There is the need for more obvious hooks to attract stakeholders of the waterside

issues. These are more likely to be based on hierarchies and markets such as capital

resources and administrative powers. It has been increasingly evident that funding

availability is the most popular reason that stakeholders get involved. Martin and

Pearce (1994) point out the potential of the European Regional Development Fund20

(ERDF) and it preparation process that can stimulate on the creation of collaborative

approaches at regional level by broadening participants’ perspectives, promoting a

more corporate approach, and drawing in a wider range of social partners.

The collaborative partnerships need resource-based hooks to attract stakeholders to

become involved. Funding schemes such as the ERDF may facilitate regionally based

collaboration by securing supports from larger organisations (i.e. central government

and the EC).

Lowndes and Skelcher (1998: p327) argue that “while funds (or the possibility of

funds) could bring partners together, it could not keep them round the table”. Once

initial excitement of funding availability has declined, stakeholders seem not to be

interested in the mundane management tasks. Gary (1989) believes that mandates

from external parties may guarantee that parties appear at the table, but they do not

typically encourage parties to negotiate in good faith. If participants do not believe

that their interests would be protected and advanced throughout the process, they

20 The ERDF is one of the European Union’s four Structural Funds. Its main aim is to promote economic and social cohesion in the European Union by working to reduce inequalities between regions or social groups (European Commission, 2001).

72


would be reluctant to take an active part of the process. From the experience of SRB

programmes, the RTPI suggests that hosting conferences or open days may be a way

of keeping stakeholders interested.

Not only did it [a conference or an open day] allow many people to

meet for the first time, allowing them to share their experiences, it also

showed people what was happening across the region and enabled

many to put their own project into the context of the programme as a

whole (RTPI, 1998: p40).

Events like conferences may be also used as an opportunity for a consultation process,

which may be necessary to review the visions and management structure of the

partnerships in regular intervals.

Another important aspect of formal membership is the inclusion of all affected

stakeholders. This is because a process that meets this criterion is more swiftly and

smoothly implemented than one the does not (Innes, 1999a). Ideally, participants in a

collaborative process should represent points of view and interests, neither numbers of

people (Straus, 1999a) nor strength of powers. The collaborations are less stable when

participants start with uneven shares of equity with one party being more dominant

(Blodgett, 1992). Therefore, it is important to ensure the involvement as equal

partners in defining the needs and identifying problems, causes, solutions, and

resources (Hartig et al. 1998). Westley (1995) emphasises that participants in

collaborative efforts must ensure that equal access to resources is provided, as

inequalities in distribution of resources and media attention may result in power

imbalance.

On the other hand, collaborative partnerships need to concern reluctant stakeholders.

If one of key stakeholders group is not willing to participate, the facilitating body

should explore with the other participants whether another group representing the

same interests would be an acceptable substitute (Carlson, 1999). However, seeking

alternative stakeholders should be carried out after investigating whether the

collaborative approach can be proceed comprehensively without the particular

reluctant stakeholder (Thomas-Larmer, 1998).

73


INVOLVING INFORMAL MEMBERSHIPS

Informal memberships include stakeholders who may not represent their interest in

formalised structures, but take part of the partnership activities under the partnership

objectives. In many cases, informal members are local interest groups and local

communities. Arnstein (1969) identifies eight different levels of public involvement:

manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated

power, and citizen control. ‘Higher involvement’ would be to sit at the decision-

making table and represent interests of community groups in the consensus building

process as a formal membership. Informal membership may engage ‘lower

involvement’ that is participation by updating information on local projects and taking

part of local community group activities. However, ‘why involve the community?’

The simple answer is ‘the community has a right to be involved’ (Department of the

Environment, 1995: p21; and DETR, 1997: p13). The importance of community

involvement has been emphasised in terms of following three broad headings (DETR,

1997; and Ward and Watson, 1997):

1. Better decision making: local people or particular interest groups can identify

the problems and needs of the particular area or group. Therefore, involving

communities is important at the early stage of partnership creation;

2. More effective programme delivery: at the point of programme delivery,

involving community and voluntary is cost-effective. The community is able

to mobilise resources in the form of people’s time and effort; and

3. Sustained programme: where the community is playing an important role in

long-term task of revitalisation and management. Once a sense of community

has been made, the benefits of revitalisation activities are more likely to be

sustained, and the community is more likely to be involve in other projects.

Community participation in waterside issues seems to have limitations due to its

traditional compartmental approach, long-term, and large-scale areas. Therefore,

public consultation has been much more common than public participation in water

environment decision-making in practice (Baker Associates, 1997 quoted in Tunstall

et al., 2000). The process of involving informal membership has not been considered

exclusively in the waterside issues. It is evident that funding availability is an

important hook for attracting informal memberships. However, there is no doubt that

74


collaborative partnerships need to aim for enhancing community stewardships so as to

stimulate the healthy development of the environment and the people who inhabit it

(see Section 2.4.1: Principles for Waterside Revitalisation). When people share a

strong sense of community they are motivated and empowered to change problems

they face, and are better able to mediate the negative effects of things over which they

have no control (Chavis, 1990; and Forrester, 1999).

Figure 4.1 illustrates a mechanism of community involvement. In a process of

involving local communities, Rothenbuhler (1991) has found that communication

(information and interaction) with others is the beginning of community involvement.

Information includes keeping caught up with the local news and interaction is for

socialising with other community members. Communication provides the basis for a

sense of community. When a sense of community is developed, the community is

willing to be involved in local community projects. This involvement takes two

forms: either providing ideas for project implementation; or working to improve their

environments (Rothenbuhler, 1991). Some kinds of people are motivated to work for

change because they have an idea about how to improve things, although working for

change represents a higher level of involvement than having the ideas. Other kinds of

people are motivated to work for change because they know something must be done

and hope a good idea will follow.

75


Figure 4.0.8 Involving Local Communities

Source: Adapted from Chavis (1990) and Rothenbuhler (1991)

Drawn from Figure 4.1, this research attempts to develop a further mechanism of

community involvement in a partnership context (Figure 4.2). This focuses on how a

partnership may stimulate local communities to become involved in partnership

activities. As Rothenbuhler (1991) suggests, enhancing communication may stimulate

the development of local stewardship in the local area. Therefore, first, the partnership

needs to provide considerable information to local communities to develop an

understanding of, and respect for their environment. This may include organising

education and awareness programmes, for example, involving school education and

publishing information packs. On the other hand, the information could be distributed

through other forms of media such as newsletters, advertisements and articles in local

newspapers regarding their local environment. Second, it is evident that residents who

socially interact with their neighbours are more likely to be aware of local voluntary

organisations and become members (Chavis, 1990). In order to facilitate this informal

social interaction, the partnership may organise some kinds of social events or small-

scale festivals that can provide an opportunity for the local people to meet each other

in line with education and awareness programme delivery.

Stewardshipbeginning of community

involvement

Information

Communication

keeping caught up with the local news

getting together with other people

Interaction

Idea or working for change

CommunityInvolvemen

t

76


Figure 4.0.9 Involving Local Communities: Collaborative Partnerships at Local

LevelT

op-d

own

Wor

king

in a

Par

tner

ship

Bot

tom

-up

Wor

king

in a

Com

mun

ity

Stewardshipbeginning of

community involvement

Media Information(newsletters,

advertisement,local newspapers)

Education andAwareness

(involving school,information packs)

Organising SocialEvents

(Events in line witheducation and

awarenessprogrammes)

Information

Communication

keeping caught up withthe local news

getting together withother people

Interaction

Market

Idea or working forChange

InvolvementInformationsharing information andestablishing the role of

the community

sharing vision,resources and riskstogether with mutual

benefits

Interaction

Communication

Network Hierarchy

Source: Author

After the communication stage, stewardship for their environments may develop

between individuals. This may encourage ‘higher’ community involvement such as

working as a member partner within a partnership environment. In terms of

community representation in the collaborative partnerships, the communication is

once again important to work with other member partners.

The community groups share information with other sector partners. The community

groups may provide local knowledge to the partnership, and obtain information on

their local environment from other member partners. The interaction is another kind

77


of communication that develops networks between partners. Interactions can be

formed based on mutual benefits, common goals, shared resources and risks.

However, in order to enhance a sense of ownership in the collaborative process, the

community needs to be involved from the point at which the partnership is established

(Dewar and Forrester, 1999; Worpole, 1999). The sense of ownership enables the

community to feel that the partnership’s aims are their aims. Consequently, the

community may be involved in the long-term management of their waterside

environment.

ESTABLISHING VISIONS AND OBJECTIVES

Kim (1998) identified that one of powerful factors contributing to effective

partnership programme delivery is a strong sense of vision that is developed with

inclusion of all affected stakeholders. However, it is almost impossible to bring in all

stakeholders at the earlier stage of partnership establishment. The diversity and

complexity of the waterside issues may force to limit invitations of participation to

key regional stakeholders at the time of establishing visions of partnerships. As a

result, views of smaller interest groups or roles of local communities can be ignored

by the emphasis place on major public and private organisations in the region.

Alternatively, the partnership needs to allow comprehensive consultation processes

for its aims and objectives.

4.3.3 Collaborative Partnership Programme Delivery

MANAGING COLLABORATIVE ARENAS

Considering all service delivery processes are organised in collaborative arenas, how

these arenas are managed is critical for successful service delivery. The issues must be

discussed openly, and there should be agreement on how the group would conduct

itself. It is important to recognise that even when agreements are reached,

unanticipated conflicts may arise afterwards. Gary (1989) points out that the role of

facilitators is crucial for the effective collaborative process. Processes and

management skills at the meetings for building consensus have been provided in

78


various literature21. Therefore, this section introduces a number of key principles of

managing collaborative arenas, rather than exploring management skills and

techniques in great depth. These principles are summarised as follows:

1. Managing the collaborative process is based on the network mode of

governance that encourages ‘thicker’ communication among participants for

the most effective results. The process must create new personal and working

relationships and social and political capitals among participants. Networking

is also critical to ensure that a complex system can be responsive and adaptive.

2. Participants in the arena must own the process. The process should allow

participants to set their own ground rules and determine their own tasks,

objectives, and discussion topic. Participants must be involved from the

beginning of the collaborative process and should design the process

themselves. This may provide a sense of ownership so that participants

commit themselves to a more active role in the process and implementation.

3. The process of collaboration must be educational. All participants must be

aware of, and learn from, facts, scientific knowledge, expertise, and

experiences from other participants. This learning process may change

stakeholders’ attitudes from a traditional compartmentalised working practice

towards a collaborative approach.

4. The collaborative process in the committee must not make losers. It should

end with the win-win strategy for all stakeholders. This is essential to

encourage wider involvement ranging from public agencies to businesses and

local interest groups.

KEY ASPECTS OF COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS

The major concern in collaborative planning theory in recent years is to develop a

framework for applying the theory to practice. Generally speaking, Figure 4.3

illustrates an institutional form for collaborative form of policy development and

delivery that is shown in a wider literature22. Collaborative planning requires a

discourse arena (coordinating committee) to build consensuses among participants. In 21 See especially, Doyle and Straus (1982), Kaner (1996), Schwarz (1994), Straus (1999b).22 See especially, Castells (1996), Healey (1997; and 1998a), Innes and Booher (1999b), Susskind et al., (1999b).

79


this context, Castells (1996) defines consensus building as the entire efforts of

collaborative approaches that are seen as part of the societal response to changing

conditions in modern society. This model shows that collaborative efforts are

delivered through those who participate in a coordinating committee and search for

feasible solutions for the identified problems. It also emphasises facilitation that is an

impartial meeting management skill so as to enable participants to focus on

substantive issues and goals (Elliott, 1999) in a coordinating committee. However, in

order to investigate how collaborative efforts can be delivered in practice, which is the

aim of this research, there is a need for a more comprehensive model showing a

service delivery mechanism of collaborative partnerships in a real-life context.

Figure4.0.10 An Institutional Design for Collaborative Planning

Source: Extensively adapted from Castells (1996), Healey (1997; and 1998a), Innes and Booher (1999b) and Susskind et al. (1999b)

Creighton (1983 quoted in Heathcote, 1998) has pointed out that some stages of the

planning process require broad reviews by the widest audience possible and others

stages have a greater need for technical focus and continuity. In this context,

partnership approaches may require different implementation processes to operate at

different stages (RTPI, 1998). For example, the decision-making process may require

formal membership of the partnership, as it usually rests with a forum such as a board

Collaborative Institutional Form

ConsensusBuilding

Facilitation

Coordinating Committee

Meeting Management

Service Delivery

80


of directors. Informal members may be needed for consultation processes and co-

operative practical works that emphasise both top-down and bottom-up approaches

(Paton and Emerson, 1988).

The collaborative partnership requires a multiplicity of implementation processes to

achieve its goals. Some stages of planning processes require continuity of leadership

and clarity of vision, but others require rather citizen participatory approaches. This is

especially evident when the partnerships deal with complexity and dynamics of

multiple issues such as integrated waterside management. Therefore, the institutional

arrangements for waterside revitalisation should be able to accommodate multiple

processes to draw these complexities and dynamics. This research has identified three

key aspects of the collaborative partnership for waterside revitalisation based on the

notion of collaborative planning: consensus building, facilitation and open

participation.

First, consensus building is critical to partnership building (Harding, 1997), and it has

been recognised as a primary tool for implementing collaborative efforts. Consensus

building focuses on a process in which individual stakeholders engage in face-to-face

dialogue to seek agreement on strategies, plans, policies and actions. This emphasises

an integrated vision established through agreement from all stakeholders.

Second, facilitation highlights a partnership way of working by encouraging member

partners to deliver its services. The fundamental principle behind this facilitation is

that translating the vision of partnership to its partners may stimulate member

organisations to identify with its objectives and take action for themselves.

Third, open participation emphasises a wider definition of involvement. The

institutional framework for the waterside management should allow consideration of a

wider range of alternatives including multi-level co-operations and responsibilities

outside of the formal planning bodies (Schramm, 1980). Therefore, there must be a

channel for informal memberships to become part of the partnership activities.

Faced with the complexity of waterside agendas, the partnership should be able to

make stakeholders reach agreed statements for common goals (consensus building); to

encourage partners to implement focused issues or projects (facilitation); and to allow

wider involvement of all interest groups willing to participate in various aspects (open

participation). Table 4.1 shows a comparison between these three key aspects of

81


collaborative partnership for waterside revitalisation. Consensus building and

facilitation proceed in a process of meeting management with relatively limited

involvement, while open participation is more related to organising practical projects

by involving a much wider range of interest groups than the other two. Consensus

building produces strategies and plans by formal membership. Facilitation has wider

involvement than a consensus building process in implementing strategies and

practical projects. Each aspect of waterside revitalisation cannot be isolated in

implementing a collaborative approach.

Table 4.0.12 Key Aspects of Waterside Revitalisation

Governing Method Implementing Actions Partner Participation

Consensus Building committee meetings strategies limited to formal memberships

Facilitation committee meetings strategies or projectsinvolves (in)formal memberships, but selected for a focused agenda or project

Open Participation project management projects open to formal and informal

memberships

Source: Author

A mechanism of collaborative partnership service delivery that is developed in this

research is illustrated in Figure 4.4. A collaborative partnership has co-ordinating

committees as facilitating bodies. A co-ordinating committee is structured to

incorporate and steer collaborative actions to deliver the partnership services by

means of not only developing and implementing strategies and plans (strategy-

oriented action) but also organising and undertaking practical projects (project-

oriented action).

82


Figure 4.0.11 A Mechanism of Collaborative Partnership Service Delivery

Source: Author

Strategy-oriented actions have two different types. One is to develop strategies of ‘in-

house management’ for the partnership such as corporate plans. This influences the

institutional context of the partnership including the co-ordinating body itself. This

strategic process includes reviewing the visions of the partnership and rearranging the

institutional structure in responding to the changes in political environment. The other

type of strategy-oriented action is to develop management plans and strategies for

integrated waterside revitalisation. The implementation of these strategies can be

directly delivered through formal members of the partnership possessing statutory

powers. The process of consensus building itself transforms the attitudes of

participants through mutual understanding and learning processes. The strategic

actions may also be delivered through a facilitation process by encouraging partner

members to take actions to meet the agreed visions.

83


Project-oriented actions can be delivered through facilitation and open participation

aspects of waterside revitalisation. The partnership can act as a facilitator to

encourage member partners to take their indisposed projects forward. The projects can

be also implemented by inviting open participation. Open participation engages much

wider participations including informal memberships and the general public. A

collaborative partnership may need to organise open participation events to facilitate

their involvement, although open participation projects can be also organised by

member partners themselves.

CONSENSUS BUILDING

Consensus building is “a process of seeking unanimous agreement” (Susskind, 1999a:

p6). A wider definition of consensus building covers the entire efforts of collaborative

approaches that are seen as part of the societal response to changing conditions in

increasingly networked societies, where power and information are widely distributed

(Castells, 1996). A narrower definition, which this research suggests, is that

consensus is a way of searching for feasible strategies to deal with uncertain,

complex, and controversial planning and policy tasks where other practices have

failed (Innes and Booher, 1999b). Susskind (1999a) explains that consensus building

involves a good-faith effort to meet the interests of all stakeholders. Consensus may

be reached when everyone agrees that they can cope with whatever is proposed after

the consensus building process. Consensus building requires facilitators or mediators

who can frame a proposal after listening carefully to everyone’s concerns. Participants

in a consensus building process have both the right to expect that no one will ask them

to undermine their interests and the responsibility to propose solutions that will meet

everyone else’s interests as well as their own.

The governing method for consensus building often takes the form of committee

meetings with an exclusive invitation to formal members. This limited invitation is

because there is the need to control committee size for effective meeting management.

The usual outcome of consensus building is some kind of strategy or plan. Consensus

building may proceed at various geographical scales from the regional level to the

local watercourse level. However, small local interest groups tend to be less involved

84


in the process at the regional level. Heathcote (1998: p132) summarised a typical

process of consensus building in collaborative committees as follows:

1. Representatives from a range of constituencies are invited to attend a ‘retreat’ over

one or more days. Those invited should have the power to make decisions on behalf

of their constituencies.

2. The meeting begins with introductory remarks from the sponsor, including a

statement to the effect that consensus is the desired outcome of the process, that the

process attempts to value and accommodate all major viewpoints, and that everyone

will have an equal opportunity to speak.

3. Each of the participants in turn is invited to speak about the reasons for their

participation, their views on the issue, and the reasons for those views. This step

serves to clear the air and ensure that everyone’s view is known to the group.

4. The facilitator then emphasises the importance of full understanding in the process

and invites the participants to talk to one another, learning more about them as

individuals and about their views and values. The proviso in this step is that

discussions may be held only on a one-to-one basis. Each participant is encouraged to

learn from each other participant. The facilitator may set a time limit, probably

several hours, on this activity.

5. After this initial ice-breaking and information-gathering step, the facilitator recalls

the group into a plenary session. The mood of this session is usually much more

relaxed and friendly then that of the initial meeting, reflecting the participants’ new

understanding of their colleagues and a building sense of team. The facilitator invites

the group to speak, again one at time, on any insights they have had or any questions

that remain in their minds. The participants should, however, be discouraged from

talking about any ‘deals’ that have been struck between stakeholder groups.

6. The facilitator then allows the group plenty of time for free discussion, this time

allowing larger groups to converse. In this step, what typically happens is that small

clusters of people form, and as the discussion-and consensus-begins to develop, the

clusters gradually coalesce into larger and larger groups until the whole group is

together.

7. Even at this encouraging stage, consensus may be fragile. The group should

choose a quiet and diplomatic individual as recorder. The group then calls out the

85


points of consensus for the recorder to write on a flip chart or blackboard. This list is

systematically reviewed and edited by the group until the wording is acceptable to

everyone.

8. As a final step, each participant formally signs the agreed-upon position to

indicate full support.

Judith Innes (1999a) develops a comprehensive set of criteria for evaluating

consensus-base efforts in relation to the nature of a consensus process and its

outcomes (Table 4.2). The power of a consensus building comes from inclusion, not

exclusion. The process itself has no formal authority. Power results from the fact that

participants represent political powers and authorities from public, private and

voluntary sector organisations. This emphasises that the role of representatives who

bridge between the collaborative arena and their parent organisations. A good

collaborative effort would be one in which the representatives at the table have kept in

close touch with the stakeholder groups they represent, kept them up-to-date on the

discussions, and introduced stakeholders’ concerns into the dialogue.

FACILITATION

Facilitation used to be defined as an impartial meeting management skill so as to

enable participants to focus on substantive issues and goals (Elliott, 1999). However,

this research defines facilitation as a process that encourages members of partners to

take actions in a particular agenda or a certain project under the vision of the

collaborative partnership. Considering that facilitation is organised within the

collaborative arena, the facilitation process needs to be consistent with the principles

of collaboration and consensus building.

86


Table 4.0.13 Criteria for Evaluating Consensus Building

Criteria about ProcessP1

P2P3P4P5P6P7P8

The consensus building process includes representatives of all relevant and significantly different interests;The process is driven by a purpose that is practical and shared by the group;It is self-organizing;It follows the principles of civil discourse;It adapts and incorporates high-quality information;It encourages participants to challenge assumptions;It keeps participants at the table, interested, and learning; andIt seeks consensus only after discussions fully explore the issues and interests and significant effort was made to find creative responses to differences.

Criteria to Assess OutcomesO1O2O3O4O5O6O7

O8O9

O10

O11

O12O13O14

The process produced a high-quality agreement;It ended stalemate;It compared favourably with other planning or decision methods in terms of costs and benefits;It produced feasible proposals from political, economic, and social perspectives;It produced creative ideas for action;Stakeholders gained knowledge and understanding;The process created new personal and working relationships and social and political capital among participants;It produced information and analyses that stakeholders understand and accept as accurate;Learning and knowledge produced within the consensus process were shared by others beyond the immediate group;It had second-order effects, beyond agreements or attitudes developed in the process, such as changes in behaviours and actions, spin-off partnerships, collaborative activities, new practices, or even new institutions;It resulted in practices and institutions that were both flexible and networked, which permitted a community to respond more creatively to change and conflict;It produced outcomes that were regarded as just;The outcomes seemed to serve the common good or public interest; andThe outcomes contributed to the sustainability of natural and social systems.

Source: Adapted from Innes (1999a: pp647-654)

Facilitation is formalised as a result of the dialogue in the collaborative committee.

The involvement of participants is wider than one of consensus building, as it tackles

a specific agenda and practical projects involving both formal and informal members.

Nevertheless, participants in the facilitation process tend to be limited to a particular

geographical area or a specific interest. Therefore, facilitation may involve wider

involvement, but the affected stakeholders may be a smaller number. This may allow

more comprehensive networks to be established within the smaller working group.

The facilitation process enables a collaborative partnership to implement its vision

through partners. The role of representatives is also emphasised in facilitation

processes to secure effective feedback to partner organisations.

The outcomes of facilitation in waterside revitalisation originate from both strategy-

oriented and project-oriented actions. Firstly, for strategic actions, the collaborative

partnership needs to persuade partner organisations (who have administrate power to

87


implement agreed strategies) to synchronise their individual plans and strategies with

the vision of the partnership. Additionally, another supplementary outcome of

facilitation is to speed up the production process of partner organisation’s strategic

plans. Collaborative partnerships can also develop a facilitation scheme such as an

award scheme to encourage partners to put extra efforts into the improvement of

waterside environments. Secondly, project-oriented facilitations are to encourage

member partners to take their indisposed projects forward. These processes may

involve resolving conflicts and complexities between affected stakeholders.

OPEN PARTICIPATION

It is now clear that it is impossible to bring all stakeholders at the table, and not all

interest groups are willing to participate in a decision-making process. Open

participation is a process that provides a channel for all those interest groups, who are

willing to participate, to become part of collaborative activities. In contrast to the

other two key aspects, open participation is organised by project management rather

than through the co-ordinating committee. This process involves a much wider range

of interest groups comparing with the other two aspects. Open participation may

involve not only all member partners from government agencies to local interest

groups but also the general public. However, it is more likely to involve informal

members in more localised schemes.

In order to stimulate open participation in revitalising the waterside, the collaborative

partnership needs to organise a focal event to encourage their participations. As

discussed earlier, funding availability may act as a hook to attract wider participation,

particularly from local interest groups. The scope of open participation can be

determined by the participants themselves. Therefore, the collaborative partnership

needs to provide information and practical guidelines for the participant organisations

and individuals to ensure that their activities meet the partnership vision. For instance,

local environment protection groups may undertake a tree-planting project along their

local watercourses. This may be in consistent with the sustainable development

vision. However, without scientific guidelines and strategies on the local wildlife

environments, this local project may destroy their local wild flora or wildlife habitats

by planting inappropriate species.

88


4.3.4 Collaborative Partnership Termination or Succession

There are three different exit strategies for the partnership termination or succession:

complete close of the partnership; continuity of the vision through partner

organisations; and succession of the partnership institution. Considering it is generally

assumed that they will only run for a limited period (Bailey, 1995), partnerships are

required to prepare situation after their termination. The exit strategies need to secure

that the vision of the partnership can be sustained even after the partnership

termination. Most important aspect of exit strategies is to develop comprehensive

networks between partner organisations that may enable future collaboration. In this

context, networks between formal and informal memberships are particularly

important. A possible exit strategy is a rearrangement of the institutional structures.

The partnership structure may be divided into several mini versions of partnership as

extensions of sub-committees or facilitating bodies subject to funding bids.

4.4 Conclusion

The emergence of new forms of collaborative planning style creates a number of

operational difficulties due to its idealism and utopianism. It is clear that integrated

waterside revitalisation needs a collaborative planning approach to achieve its

sustainability principles. However, this sustainability in the waterside issues has been

seen as a ‘necessary evil’; sustainability might enable common purpose to be

established and involve wider stakeholders despite the complexity of the waterside

issues, but it may not generate a strong commitment from stakeholders. By drawing

attention to the operational difficulties of collaborative approaches in waterside

issues, this chapter has attempted to design an institutional arrangement for integrated

waterside revitalisation.

It has been argued that collaborative partnerships are one of desirable institutional

arrangements for integrated waterside revitalisation, considering the complexity and

dynamics of waterside environments. The institutional arrangement for waterside

collaborative partnerships that has been proposed in this chapter is structured in a

form of the life cycle of partnerships: pre-partnership collaboration, partnership

creation and consolidation, partnership programme delivery, and partnership

termination. There is no doubt that network modes of governance are essential to

89


implement integrated waterside revitalisation. Bearing in mind the point that

collaborative partnerships require a multiplicity of implementation processes, this

chapter has developed a service delivery mechanism through three key aspects of

waterside revitalisation: consensus building; facilitation; and open participation.

There is a relatively extensive literature on consensus building processes as

conventional tools for conflict resolution and collaborative efforts. However, there is

not much research and knowledge on how collaborative partnerships operate in

delivering integrated waterside revitalisation. In particular, facilitation and open

participation aspects of waterside revitalisation, which have been identified through

this research, are little known. Therefore, the following chapters will investigate a

concrete example of collaborative partnership in a particular river basin in terms of its

institutional arrangement and operational practice.

90

Chapter Five: Case Study, The Mersey Basin Campaign

Chapter Five:

Case Study: The Mersey Basin Campaign

91


5.1 Introduction

Although the collaborative planning approach is emphasised in the field of waterside

revitalisation, little is known about its implementation in a real-life context.

Therefore, there is a need to investigate a concrete example of the collaborative

partnership in order to identify operational difficulties, and to make recommendations

that will ultimately lead to better collaborative efforts. The case study in this research,

the Mersey Basin Campaign, the North West of England, has been selected to

illustrate this point.

This chapter introduces the case study that will be investigated extensively in Chapter

6 (focusing on the Campaign’s institutional arrangement) and Chapter 7

(concentrating on the service delivery practice of the Campaign). This chapter

consists of two major parts. The first part sets out the research methodology and

reasons for choosing the case study. This also includes the choice of six individual

case studies within the Campaign activities, which will be explored in Chapter 7. The

second part of this chapter focuses on the background to the Mersey Basin Campaign,

including the objectives, institutional structure, and scope of activities.

5.2 Case Study Methodology

5.2.1 Research Methodology

A case study method has been chosen for the primary research strategy. This is

because this research aims to investigate the contemporary issues of collaborative

partnership that is a novel form of partnership in modern society. In carrying out case

studies, about 40 semi-structured interviews have been undertaken, and over 25

meetings and practical projects have been observed. The case studies were undertaken

in two stages of interviewing (Figure 5.1). At an early stage in the research, 7 initial

interviews together with observations of meetings and practical projects were

undertaken in order to understand the nature of the Mersey Basin Campaign and build

up networks with key players of the Campaign. Understanding of the overall

Campaign activities was gained from these initial interviews with practitioners and

observations. These experiences helped the author to select detailed case studies

focusing on the service delivery practice of the Campaign. The secondary interviews

92


were specifically focused on: 1) the institutional arrangement of the Campaign based

on the four stage of partnership life cycle; and 2) the service delivery practice of the

Campaign based on the three key aspects of the collaborative partnership for the

waterside revitalisation.

Figure 5.0.12 Research Methodology: Interview Structure

Most interview questions were open-ended, and were intended to encourage

interviewees to give their personal opinions rather than the views representing their

organisations. Although interviewing was the primary method of undertaking the case

studies, in some instances, taking part in practical projects enabled the author to

obtain more precise insights (Figure 5.2). Becoming involved in practical projects

within the Campaign activities provided good opportunities to conduct informal

interviews with the project participants. This relaxed approach helped the author to

gather internal information and personal opinions from interviewees. This is because

the author came to be regarded as a part of a group rather than an external observer.

This is particularly important as the research is concerned with inter-organisational

and interpersonal relations between individual representatives in a partnership

institution.

93


Figure 5.0.13 The Author’s Case Study Activity Featured in one of the Campaign’s

Publications

Source: Mersey Basin Campaign(2000c:p14)

Note: The Author (left of the photo) participated in voluntary group projects that were

organised as a part of the Mersey Basin Weekend in 1999.

Interview questionnaires have been individually structured according to the positions

held by individual interviewees and the scope of their involvement in Campaign

activities. Depending on the individual interviewees, therefore, the interview length

varied between 30 minutes and two and a half hours. The interview preparation

included not only the agenda of the interview but also the personal details of the

interviewees such as current position, scope of participation in the Campaign, former

employee records and personal views on the Campaign, if possible. These helped the

author to conduct wide-ranging interviews covering all aspects of activities in which

the individual interviewee has been involved. Additionally, these inclusive

preparations also helped in carrying out independent analysis of the interview

contents by understanding each interviewee’s personal and political positions.

94


Interviewees were selected on the basis of the experience that the author gained

through initial interviews and observations, and suggestions from interviewees were

also taken into account. In the first instance, it is obvious that one of the first

considerations for selecting interviewees should be who they are directly involved in

the Campaign activities. Initial contacts to the interviewees were made as a result of

information obtained through web sites, documents and personal networks of my

supervisor. At the end of each interview, the interviewee was invited to introduce

other colleagues who may be appropriate for further interviews in relation to

particular aspects of the case study.

Many inter-organisational studies face the criticism that conducting interviews with

internal players is essential but they are more likely to protect vulnerable aspects of

themselves and disguise the meanings of some of their actions and feelings. In order

to extend the scope of the case studies, the author endeavoured to select a wide range

of interviewees such as key facilitators, actively or passively participating

representatives, academia, and the general public. Most of all, the author deliberately

approached, and conducted interviews with ex-employees of the Campaign. This is

because ex-employees have a comprehensive understanding of internal aspects of the

Campaign, but also possess external views. Although there is a consideration that ex-

employees may have grievances against the Campaign, they are more likely to

provide precise features and critical arguments, as they do not have direct

responsibilities to the Campaign.

5.2.2 Selection of the Case Study

THE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN AS THE CASE STUDY

It is certainly true that there are great differences among the political and

administrative traditions in different countries. Many good examples of collaborative

planning are to be found in the Netherlands, which has long served as an example of a

consensus-based political system. On the other hand, the United States stands at the

opposite end of the cultural continuum that represents the individualistic,

confrontational and litigious cultures (Fiorino, 1995; Meadowcroft, 1998; Rabe, 1986;

and Rabe, 1988). Regardless of the cultural and political differences between

countries, this search for new approaches towards positive collaborative efforts is

95


widespread in both various locations and aspects of governance. These cultural and

political differences force planning academics and practitioners to adapt collaborative

approaches in responding to different circumstances in practice to achieve benefits for

the environment and society.

This research covers a concrete example of collaborative efforts in the context of the

United Kingdom, in particular focuses on integrated waterside revitalisation. The case

study, the Mersey Basin Campaign, is a strategic partnership between public, private

and voluntary sectors to clean up the rivers, canals and estuary of the Mersey Basin

(Figure 5.3) and restore associated degraded land to optimum uses for industry,

housing or amenity. The Campaign was formally launched by the Department of the

Environment in 1985. This 25-years government-sponsored initiative is a very early

and rare example of collaborative partnerships in the UK. The Campaign pioneered

the idea of collaborative planning in a process of integrated waterside revitalisation.

Figure 5.0.14 The Mersey Basin

The Campaign is one of the largest river basin projects in the world (Wood et al.

1999). In 1999, the Campaign awarded the Inaugural Thiess Environmental Service

Riverprize in international recognition of excellence in river management. This global

Liverpool

Chester

Birkenhead

Ellesmere Port

Southport

Preston Burnley

Warrington

Wigan

Runcorn

SalfordStockport

Bury

Blackburn

Rochdale

Oldham

Macclesfield

Crewe

Northwich

0 30km

Irish Sea

96


competition with over 100 entries took part in the International River Management

Symposium that is organised as a part of the River Festival in Brisbane, Australia.

The Riverprize judge panel, which consisted of international experts in river and river

basin management, pointed out that the Campaign “is the best example by far of

environmental co-operation between all partners who work so willingly and

efficiently with the Campaign” (Mersey Basin Campaign, 2000a: p7). This clearly

emphasises the international recognition of the Campaign as a good example of

collaborative partnership in the field of integrated waterside revitalisation.

SIX CASE STUDIES FOR SERVICE DELIVERY PRACTICE

The selection of the case studies investigating service delivery practice of the

Campaign is based on the three key aspects of collaborative partnerships for waterside

revitalisation in practice: consensus building; facilitation; and open participation (each

aspect will be explored extensively in Chapter 7). In order to maximise the use of this

case study strategy, it was felt that one case study alone would be insufficient for

sound conclusions to be made. Given the time and resource constraints of the PhD

framework, six case studies (allocating two for each aspect of collaborative

partnership) were seen as an appropriate number to allow sufficient depth.

The primary intention in selecting case studies was to include the full range of

characteristics of the Campaign. Figure 5.4 illustrates the rationale for the case study

selection to reflect diverse characteristics of the Campaign within the service delivery

mechanism. A consensus building process has two categories: (a) delivering the tasks

of the partnership through a policy making process; (b) developing strategies for ‘in-

house management’. In the case of (a), agreed strategies can be directly implemented

through formal members of partnership possessing statutory powers, while the (b)

type of consensus building is to influence the facilitating body of the partnership. The

two categories of facilitation are: (c) developing strategies to encourage partners to act

under the vision of partnership; and (d) stimulating partners to implement practical

projects. Open participation is either: (e) engaging members of the partnership; or (f)

engaging members of the general public.

97


Figure 5.0.15 Selecting the Six Case Studies for Service Delivery Practice

Source: Author, modified from Figure 4.2

Consensus building engages strategy-oriented actions that are delivered through

formal memberships. The two case study categories are as follows:

(a) Consensus building to deliver the tasks of the partnership through a policy-

making process. Statutory organisations among member partners may be

directly involved in developing and delivering the strategies and plans. For

this category, the Mersey Estuary Management Project has been chosen. This

case study involves a Mersey Strategy that is a partnership delivering

integrated estuary management under the Campaign vision. The Strategy

conducts and implements a Mersey Estuary Management Plan and its Action

Plans that are produced through comprehensive consensus building processes.

(b) Consensus building to develop strategies for ‘in-house management’ of the

partnership. These activities include the production of corporate plans and a

review of partnership visions and structure in responding to the change of

98


political environment. The Mersey Basin Campaign Council and the Manifesto

Pledge Groups have been chosen for this category. This case study shows how

consensus building can operate in steering the Campaign and developing

recommendations to implement the pledges that show the commitment of the

Campaign.

Facilitation may involve both strategy-oriented and project-oriented actions that may

be delivered through formal and informal memberships of the partnership. The two

case studies on the facilitation aspect of the Campaign are as follows:

(c) Facilitation by developing strategies to encourage partners to act under the

vision of the partnership. In this category, the Water Mark Scheme has been

chosen as a case study. The Water Mark is an award scheme to encourage

waterside businesses to take voluntary actions to improve their waterside

environments beyond the legal requirements.

(d) Facilitation by implementing practical projects. The Showrick’s Bridge

Project has been selected as a second case study of facilitation. The

Showrick’s Bridge project is a good example of facilitation aimed at replacing

the missing link in a footpath network. This project, which was initially

addressed by a voluntary group, involved a conflict resolution process

between local authorities over the funding responsibilities.

Open participation is more likely to be project-oriented actions involving not only the

member partners but also the general public. There are two case studies:

(e) Open participation engaging members of the partnership. The Mersey Basin

Weekends have been chosen as a case study in this category. The Weekends

are well-established annual events inviting voluntary actions in the region, in

particular, from member organisations of the Mersey Basin Trust and other

partners of the Campaign.

(f) Open participation engaging members of the general public. The Kingfisher

and Dragonfly/Damselfly Surveys have been selected. The Surveys invite the

general public to report sightings of the kingfisher and dragonfly/damselfly.

The Surveys served numerous purposes including water quality survey,

education and awareness, and marketing for the Campaign.

99


The choice of case studies for service delivery practice is summarised in Table 5.1.

Given six categories, the selected case studies were those organised by direct

involvements from the facilitating bodies of the Campaign, rather than mainly by a

single member organisation. After this initial sift, the two case studies within the same

category have been selected with a consideration of a possible comparison and

contrast between the two. It was intended originally to select a relatively well-

established project and a cursory project. However, there were methodological

difficulties of defining and distinguishing between the two, and lessons could be

learnt from both projects. The practicalities of the research have been also considered,

i.e. the need to have reliable and accessible information.

Table 5.0.14 The Choice of Case Studies for Service Delivery Practice

Key Aspect Case Study Characteristics

Consensus Building

(a) Mersey Estuary Management Project Strategy for project implementation and management

(b) Campaign Council and Manifesto Pledge Groups

Strategy for in-house management

Facilitation (c) Water Mark Scheme Strategy-oriented action(d) Showrick’s Bridge Project-oriented action

Open Participation

(e) Mersey Basin Weekends Invitation to member partners

(f) Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly Surveys Invitation to the general public

Source: Author

5.3 Background to the Mersey Basin Campaign

This section explores the biological and political environments of the Mersey Basin

that raised the idea of the Mersey Basin Campaign.

5.3.1 The Mersey Basin

BIOLOGICAL ISSUES OF THE MERSEY BASIN

At the advent of the Mersey Basin Campaign in 1985, the River Mersey and its

tributaries were amongst the most polluted rivers in Europe, receiving up to 60% of

the mainland pollution generated by industry and a living population of around six

million (Mersey Basin Campaign, 1997). As the Industrial Revolution began in

100


Britain with the North West of England in particular, the Mersey Basin area was one

of the first regions in the world to experience the full force of industrialisation and

urbanisation that had its roots in textiles industries of Elizabethan times (Handley and

Wood, 1999).

From the early nineteenth century, the River Mersey effectively became the carrier for

the largely uncontrolled effluent of the world’s first industrial region. The Mersey

Estuary has particularly suffered a legacy of abuse and neglect since the beginning of

the Industrial Revolution. The long-standing pollution of the Mersey Estuary was

recognised and commented upon more than 150 years ago by James Newland who

was the Borough Engineer, when he expressed his concern to the Liverpool City

Council in 1848:

‘The whole of the sewage is still thrown into the river, much of it,

indeed into the basin, and all of it at such points as to act very

prejudicially on the health of the town. It becomes therefore a

consideration of vital importance how to relieve the river from its

pollution’ (quoted from Jones, 2000: p124)

Pollution control measures were, however, only first substantiated in the 1950s.

Furthermore, there was no systematic appraisal of water, air and landward pollution

until the Strategic Plan for the North West (SPNW Joint Planning Team, 1973) was

published in 1973. This emphasised the long-term nature of environmental

improvements and its cost, in particular, river pollution being by far the greatest

burden. This recognition, the need of environmental improvement for the regional

economy, was echoed in the preparation of a Regional Economic Strategy for the

North West (North West Partnership/North West Regional Association, 1996).

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL ISSUES OF THE MERSEY BASIN

The economic history of the Mersey Basin had been in stark contrast (Boland, 1999).

Merseyside was famed for its international maritime industry that helped to drive the

expansion of the British economy. Thus, the region had been regarded as ‘the western

gateway to the world’ (Lane, 1997: p1). The Mersey Basin had by 1851 become the

world’s greatest manufacturing region, accounting for some 63% of the British textile

industry which itself yielded over 50% of the total value of the nation’s exports.

101


Industrial and commercial activities were centred on the Liverpool-Manchester urban

area with numerous satellite towns such as Burnley, Rochdale, Oldham, Runcorn and

St Helens. In the 1920s, the region’s economy began to decline in the face of fierce

global competition, and this decline gathered pace in the 1930s, reaching its peak

during the 1950s and 1960s.

The onset of acute economic restructuring in the 1970s and 1980s, caused by the

decline of the port and manufacturing sectors, shifted the comparison to that of an

‘unwanted mausoleum’ of the British economy (Merseyside Socialist Research

Group, 1980: p7). This major decline left some deep-rooted structural problems such

as: mass unemployment and labour market disintegration; ingrained social problems;

political radicalism; and urban degeneration (Boland, 1998). Faced with an

increasingly competitive and globalised economic environment, the region found

itself facing many economic, political and social challenges, particularly that of

reducing unemployment and social exclusion. A major policy response occurred in

1993, when the European Commission designated Merseyside an Objective 1 region

within the European Union. This reflects the significance problems of the region’s

economy even in the European context.

5.3.2 The Idea of the Mersey Basin Campaign

Biological, social and political environments of the Mersey Basin in the early

1980s had driven the establishment of the Campaign. The idea of the

Campaign was founded on a personal initiative of a government minister,

Michael Heseltine who saw potentials of riverside in the North West over the

significant problems of poor water quality and industrial dereliction

(Department of the Environment, 1982).

To rebuild the urban areas of the North West we need to clean and

clear the ravages of the past, to recreate the opportunities that

attracted earlier generations to come and live there and invest there.

The great challenge is now the Mersey and its tributaries. From its

source well to the east of Manchester to the sea beyond Liverpool we

must aim for much cleaner water. This objective, which will provide an

incentive for the location of industry that needs clean water, gives

102


purpose to the restoration of the banks and the riverside. It encourages

the restoration to full use and beauty of the many waterside places

neglected over the years. A Mersey Basin restored to a quality of

environmental standards fit for the end of this century will be of

incalculable significance in the creation of new employment … I can

think of no more exciting challenge for the decades ahead. (Michael

Heseltine quoted in Department of the Environment, 1982: pp1-2)

5.4 The Mersey Basin Campaign

In 1985, the Department of the Environment formally launched the Mersey Basin

Campaign with personal support from Secretary of State for the Environment. The

Campaign covers an area of some 4,680 square kilometres and with over 2,000km of

watercourses, and is a £4 billion funding programme: £2.5 billion for water quality

measures and £1.4 billion for landward regeneration (Mersey Basin Campaign, 1997).

The Campaign aims to improve water quality and the waterside environments of the

Mersey Basin, a heavily urbanised area containing the two conurbations of

Merseyside and Greater Manchester. The Campaign is clearly based on the notion of

collaborative partnership that was a shift to new ground in British administrative

practice (Wood et al., 1999). The Campaign is a unique partnership, which brings

together all interest groups on the Mersey Basin and co-ordinates all partners. Jeff

Hinchcliffe, Chief Executive of the Mersey Basin Campaign described the notion of

the Campaign:

There is no legal entente that is the Mersey Basin Campaign. The

structure of the Mersey Basin Campaign is like any other campaign.

It’s like an Anti-drink Driving Campaign. It doesn’t exist legally. It’s

just a good idea. We don’t think people who drunk should drive cars …

this good idea is getting put into effect by the government passing

laws, the police exercising control, adverts on TV, posters in pubs, and

so on. … Everybody in society has got something to contribute. You

can take that model to the Mersey Basin Campaign.

103


5.4.1 The Objectives of the Mersey Basin Campaign

The Campaign has three overarching objectives; improving water quality; stimulating

sustainable waterside development; and encouraging local watercourse stewardship.

These are:

1) to improve river quality to at least class 2 (fair) standard by the year 2010 so

that all rivers and streams are clean enough to support fish;

2) to stimulate attractive waterside developments for business, recreation,

housing, tourism and heritage; and

3) to encourage people living and working in the Mersey Basin to value and

cherish their watercourses and waterfront environments.

The first objective of the Campaign – water quality improvement – is to improve the

quality of watercourses by the year 2010 to at least Class 2 (Fair, GQA Grade C or

better) of the water quality classification developed by the National Water Council

(NWC). Table 5.2 shows the NWC water classification that is based on a General

Quality Assessment (GQA) system judging water quality with a variety of indicators.

Table 5.0.15 NWC Water Quality Classifications

NWC Class

GQA Grade

Description Indicators

1a A Water of good quality and suitable for all fish species

Trout, Salmon, stonefly larvae, mayfly larvae

1b B As above but considered to be ‘marginal’

As above

2 C Fair quality and supporting coarse fish

Dragonfly larvae, caddisfly larvae

2 D Again water of fair quality but deteriorating

Water hog louse, horse leech, water flea

3 E Water quality poor and coarse fish now beginning to straggle

Very few lice, leeches and fleas

4 F Poor quality and fish likely to be absent

Very fee organisms present. Blood worms present in low quality water

Source: Mersey Basin Campaign (2000c: p8)

The objectives of the Campaign were initially the first two – 1) and 2) - as it aimed to

tackle the region’s twin problems of poor water quality and industrial dereliction. In

1994, the third objective was added in recognition of an essential role of local

stewardship in revitalising the waterside. These three objectives reflect the concept of

sustainable development in integrating the environmental, economic and social issues.

104


5.4.2 Organisational Structure of the Mersey Basin Campaign

THE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN CENTRE: FACILITATING BODY

The Mersey Basin Campaign has the Mersey Basin Campaign Centre as a facilitating

body of the partnership. The role of the Campaign Centre is to:

Support the Campaign Chairman in his responsibility to the Secretary of State for

the delivery of the Campaign objectives;

To facilitate the Campaign partnership through networking, initiatives,

sponsorship, education and awareness;

Directly represent the Campaign through the many initiatives and projects being

developed and undertaken in the Campaign name; and

To be accountable for all the resources devoted to the Campaign (Mersey Basin

Campaign, 2000b).

The structure of the Campaign Centre has been flexible and restructured several times

in response to changing political and accounting conditions around the Campaign

(Table 5.3). In 1992, the structure of this facilitating body has been formed with thee

key elements representing public, private and voluntary sectors. These three elements

were the Mersey Basin Campaign Unit, the Mersey Basin Business Foundation and

the Mersey Basin Trust. However, there was additional structural reform with the

creation of the Mersey Basin Campaign Council in 1999.

Table 5.0.16 The Changes of the Campaign Structure, 1982-2000

Year Events1982 ‘Cleaning up the Mersey’ Consultation Paper produced.1983 1st Mersey Basin Campaign Conference held.1984 The Mersey Basin Campaign Unit was set up.1987 The Mersey Basin Campaign Voluntary Sector Network launched.

1991 The Voluntary Sector Network changed to the Mersey Basin Trust as a charitable body.

1992 The Mersey Basin Business Foundation launched.1996 The Campaign Unit changed to the Mersey Basin Campaign Administration

Ltd as a freestanding company.1999 The Campaign Council was set up. 2001 The Administration Ltd absorbed to the Mersey Basin Business Foundation

Source: Adapted from Mersey Basin Campaign (1993)

105


The structure of the Campaign Centre has echoed the principle of collaborative

planning by creating three central elements representing public, private and voluntary

sectors. This ‘three-element’ structure enabled not only representations from diverse

interests but also inputs from the various experiences of the Campaign partners.

Apparently, each key organisation operates and represents a different mode of

governance, hierarchies, markets and networks (Figure 5.5). The Administration

Company, which was a part of Government Office, it had a good understanding of a

hierarchical approach in the practice of planning. The Company learnt how the

Campaign could work and deal with local governments and governmental agencies.

The Business Foundation are able to inject a market approach to the Campaign

activities that may strengthen a business-like basis such as providing value for money

at all levels of investment. In much the same way, the Trust that nurtures

comprehensive voluntary networks in the region.

Figure 5.0.16 The Structure of Mersey Basin Campaign: 1992-2001

Source: Author

The Mersey Basin Campaign Unit had acted as an overall co-ordinator and

administrator of the partnership. It was originally part of the Environment and

Technology Directorate, Government Office for North West. It was reformed as an

106


independent company, the Mersey Basin Campaign Administration Ltd in 1996; as a

subsidiary company of the Mersey Basin Business Foundation. It was grant-aided by

the Government to promote, manage and support the Campaign effort, implementing

and facilitating policy and action. It had two main roles. Firstly, the Campaign, as a

partnership, needs to be operated by strategies presented and developed by all partners

involved. The Campaign has got about 30 local authorities, 600 voluntary

organisations and 23 businesses and government agencies. Therefore, the

Administration Company had to consult member partners and codify a common

agenda that could coordinate all interest groups involved in the Campaign. As the

Campaign was government-aided, the second role of the Company was to produce

accountability for the annual government grant. The Company was to set the

Campaign’s context and to deliver synchronised strategies satisfying accountability

for the government grants. In March 2001, in an effort of simplifying the structure of

the Campaign, the Administration Company became nominal and the role of the

Company is now taken over by its parent company, the Mersey Business Foundation.

The reasons and impacts of these structural changes on the Campaign operation will

be discussed in detail in Section 6.3.1, Chapter 6.

The Mersey Basin Business Foundation grew out of an initial partnership between the

Campaign, ICI, Shell and Unilever23, and was launched in 1992 to act as a channel for

business resources for Campaign related activities and to provide a forum for business

interests within the Campaign. The aims of the Foundation are: to help identify, fund

and implement projects to a high standard; to encourage greater participation in

Campaign activities by all sectors of the community; and to enable like-minded

businesses to meet and discuss solutions to environmental problems. At the time of

writing this thesis, the Foundation stands at around 20 members and with cash

contributions of around £310,000 (Mersey Basin Campaign, 2000c).

The Mersey Basin Trust began operation in 1987 as the Voluntary Sector Network,

which has started with the influence from the Manchester Council for Voluntary

Services to the Campaign since 1985. However, in order to support voluntary groups

as a charitable body, the Mersey Basin Trust has formed in 1991. The Trust is a

registered charity that is encouraging and supporting over 600 voluntary groups and

schools through a variety of grants and project. The Trust undertakes environmental

23 ICI became involved in 1987, Shell in 1988, and Unilever in 1989.

107


improvements and raises awareness of the value of local watercourses in the wider

community. The aims of the Trust are:

to facilitate private sector investment in Campaign projects and activities;

to involve new voluntary and community organisations with the Campaign; and

to support particular elements of the Campaign including the developing network

of River Valley Initiatives (RVIs) (Mersey Basin Campaign, 2000c:p14).

Members of the Trust include individuals, wildlife groups, outdoor recreation workers

and participants, urban and rural heritage organisations, schools and other educational

groups, and canal and civic societies. The Trust has got two sub-groups, Stream Care

and Water Detectives. Additionally, the Trust supports community groups with a

couple of grant schemes such as Waterside Revival Grant and ICI Green Action

Grant.

Following the appointment of a new chair of the Campaign, there was a restructuring

of the Campaign Centre in 1999, and the Mersey Basin Council24 has been

established. This is a collective committee combining the networking and advisory

role of following four existing committees drawn from previous structure of the

Campaign:

Campaign Development Group;

Mersey Basin Business Foundation Board of Directors;

Mersey Basin Campaign Administration Board of Directors; and

Mersey Basin Campaign Board.

Apart from the three key facilitating bodies, the Campaign has the Water Watch

project and the RVIs. The Water Watch project was launched in 1990 in Manchester

to tackle litter related issues caused by litter and debris floating on the city’s

waterway. It is both a delivery mechanism in itself and part of the Campaign

philosophy of acting as a facilitator for partner groups and organisations to take their

own action. The RVIs are ‘mini Campaign’ partnerships delivering the Campaign’s

vision to individual local watercourses.

24 The details of the Council will be explored in Chapter 7, Section 7.2.2.

108


RIVER VALLEY INITATIVES

In 1991, the NRA announced a five-year report on the state of the rivers (National

Rivers Authority, 1991), and the report found that the River Alt and Roch were the

only rivers showed no sign of improvement between 1985 and 1990. Responding to

this, Liverpool Friends of the Earth and Liverpool Healthy City 2000 organised a

public seminar to discuss the water quality of the River Alt and the improvement

actions needed to be taken. The seminar concluded the need of a working group to

establish a green corridor along the River Alt. To this end, in 1992, the Minister for

Environment and Countryside launched the Alt 2000 with ten working group

members that became the very first River Valley Initiative under the umbrella of the

Campaign.

The RVIs are in effect seen as ways to encourage action at a more local level and to

involve local communities more systematically. The RVIs build on joint working,

which enables groups of local authorities to work together and pursues common

cross-boundary interests. The RVIs have a particular value in that they focus the

Campaign’s way of working on to specific stretches of river. As the local RVIs are

targeting specific watercourses, they harness the energy of communities bringing

Campaign motives and methods to where action can be locally determined and

undertaken. The RVIs have various partners from various interest groups including

public, private and voluntary sectors. A core membership of a steering group in a

typical RVI includes the Mersey Basin Campaign, local authorities, the Environment

Agency, North West Water, and the relevant Groundwork Trust.

Between 1992 and 1998, eight RVIs were established, and there are now seventeen

RVIs in the Mersey Basin. These are: Sankey NOW, Alt 2000, Clear Glaze

Partnership, R.E.E.L., Darwen RVI, Beal Valley Partnership, RiVa 2005, Medlock

Tame RVI, Bollin Valley Partnership, Weaver Valley Initiative, Rossendale Rivers

Initiative, Upper Weaver Initiative, Mersey Strategy, Etherow Goyt Partnership,

Gowy Network, DaY Valley Action and Merseyside Canal Partnership (Figure 5.6).

109


Figure 5.0.17 Locations of the River Valley Initiatives


One of the paramount benefits of the RVIs is that the course of action is determined

locally in responding to individual characteristics of watercourses such as

environmental, political, social, and economic issues. Given their common link to the

Mersey Basin Campaign, there seems to be a great degree of similarity both between

the issues the RVIs are tackling and the wording of the aims and objectives. Five

dominant themes in their aims and objectives are:

Improving water quality;

Enhancing the land adjacent to the river and identifying suitable sites for

conservation, landscape improvement and community access;

Raising the public profile of the river;

Improving access to the river, mainly through the construction of integrated

footpath and cycle networks; and

Ensuring community involvement in the initiatives (Kidd et al. 1997).

110


GEOGRAPHICALLY-TIERED APPROACH

A particularly distinctive feature in the Campaign structure is a geographically-tiered

approach (Figure 5.7). The Campaign area is split into smaller catchment areas led by

independent steering groups such as the River Valley Initiatives. The Campaign’s

geographically-tiered approach started when the Catchment Project Groups were

established in 1985 by addressing the specific needs of particular catchments. The

Campaign area was split into five project groups led by local authorities: Central;

Upper; Estuary; Southern; and Leeds and Liverpool Canal Corridor project groups.

Figure 5.0.18 Geographically-Tiered Approach to River Management

Source: Author

Since 1993 these project groups have been complemented by RVIs and have faded in

recent years. RVIs seek to address, in a more local level, the specific problems and

opportunities associated with particular watercourses. The RVIs deliver the

Campaign’s vision at the local level. The Alt 2000 RVI, formed in 1992, helped

pioneer the concept of the RVI and its operational practice. Professor Peter Batey,

chair of the Alt 2000 RVI, develops a strategic framework to translate the objectives

of RVIs into its service delivery. His report, which submitted to the Campaign’s

Board of Directors held on 4th March 1999, shows that such a framework can be a

combination of topic-based (e.g. water quality; habitat; access; education and

The Mersey Basin Campaign

Catchment Project Groups

Individual Watercourse

Sections of Watercourse

Community

5 Catchment Project Groups(e.g. Estuary Catchment Project Group)

17 RVIs in the Mersey BasinLocal Environment Agency Plans(e.g. Alt 2000 RIV/Lower Mersey LEAP)25 Sections of the River Alt(e.g. Blueprint for Action in the Alt 2000 RVI)

MerseyBasin

111


awareness) and area-based (dividing the length of the river and its tributaries into

geographical sections). This approach, dividing local watercourses in manageable

sizes for stimulating local actions, is applied to the Alt 2000’s ‘Blueprint for Action

(Alt 2000, 1999)’ that is organised into 14 sections for the Alt itself and 11 sections

for tributary streams.

This tiered approach may help deliver the Campaign’s vision directly into local

activities by translating regional strategies to local actions. It also enables the

Campaign to work with a concern of diverse characteristics of individual

watercourses by working with local interest groups that have area-based knowledge,

local networks and resources. Targeting individual watercourses encourages local

community groups to contribute to their neighbourhood watercourses (rather than the

Basin as a whole), and stimulates stewardship on their waterside environments.

5.4.3 Scope of Action in the Mersey Basin Campaign

In relation to Campaign’s objectives, there are three primary actions in Mersey Basin

Campaign: water quality improvement, landward regeneration, and local stewardship.

WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

Water quality is an important aspect in the success of the Campaign. The Campaign’s

original water quality objective was to improve the quality of all watercourses by the

year 2010 to at least Class 2, ‘fair’ standard so that they are able to support fish.

Figure 5.8 shows the great strides in water quality improvement in the Mersey Basin

that have been made since 1985. The percentage of river length classed as being of

‘good’ or ‘fair’ quality (Class 2 or above in Table 5.2, Section 5.4.1) has doubled in

the year 2000 comparing with that of the year 1985.

112


Figure 5.0.19 Mersey Basin: Water Quality 1985-2000


In terms of the water quality improvement, the Mersey Estuary has received particular

attention from a direct result of North West Water’s (now known as United Utilities)

capital investment programme. The pollution problems in the estuary have been

tackled on three fronts: reductions in direct industrial discharges, particularly of heavy

metals, reductions in domestic waste water discharges, and better water quality

entering the estuary from upstream (Handley et al. 1998). Figure 5.9 illustrates the

dramatic decrease in the discharge of crude sewage in the estuary with the evidence of

biochemical oxygen demand.

Figure 5.0.20 Mersey Estuary: Biochemical Oxygen Demand 1972-1996


113


As part of the £ 2.5 billion investment of the United Utilities (by the year 2010), the

linkage between investment in sewage treatment plant and water quality can be seen

in Figure 5.10 and Figure 5.11, although it is not always so readily apparent. This

emphasises the importance of continuing investment on a substantial scale in

achieving the basin-wide water quality target to secure long-term benefits.

Figure 5.0.21 Water Quality Improvements: the River Roch

Source: Mersey Basin Campaign (1997: p17)

Figure 5.0.22 Water Quality Improvements: the River Glaze


River water quality improvements are very largely the responsibility of the United

Utilities and they in turn are reliant on the pricing structure approved by the DETR

and OFWAT. By means of delivering partnership targets through member partners,

the Campaign holds annual meetings with the North West Water and Environment

Agency to support and monitor the progress on improving water quality. Apart from

large investments of the North West Water and other partners, the Campaign

undertakes physical clean-up projects and education programmes through the Water

Watch and RVIs. This also includes the Campaign’s support to other water quality

improvement initiatives such as the Healthy Waterways Trust to oxygenate the

Manchester Ship Canal, and the Rural Areas Initiative to support actions of farmers.

114


LANDWARD REGENERATION

Much publicity on landward regeneration of the Campaign was afforded to a

significant number of large-scale projects, carried out by the major public and private

sector agencies, such as urban development corporations in the North West. Although

these successes of waterside flagship projects were in line with the Campaign’s

objectives, there was no obvious involvement of the Campaign in its development

process. However, rationale behind this is that the twin aspirations of improved water

quality and the regeneration of waterside sites are closely associated. Improving water

quality has helped the transformation of derelict land and buildings on the waterside

location.

That is not to say there were no tangible achievements of landward regeneration. The

Campaign supports and encourages the development of waterside sites to help local or

regional economic, social and environmental regenerations by means of creating new,

and maintaining existing, initiatives to advise or assist in the improvement or use of

waterside locations. The Campaign also encourages the reclamation of small derelict

sites. The landward activities of the Campaign are more obvious at the local levels.

The Campaign helps and encourages communities and other improve waterside

locations for environmental, educational, wildlife conservation, recreational, tourism

or heritage purposes. The Campaign supports community groups in waterside

enhancement projects through funding such as the Waterside Revival Grant. The

Campaign has also conducted smaller-scale projects at the local level, especially

through the Trust and RVIs. These may include footpath improvements, waterside

parks, footbridge construction, and riverside and canalside improvements.

LOCAL STEWARDSHIP

The Campaign recognised that developing an understanding of, and respect for, the

water environment, is an important process of stimulating local stewardship. The

Campaign has put much energy into securing these changes of attitude and awareness

in a number of different ways. These have been highlighted in their education and

awareness programmes. Over 1000 organisations - schools, community groups and

residents’ associations - throughout the Campaign area have received direct assistance

over the past twelve years. This has taken the form of grants for environmental

115


improvement, and advice and other assistance (Mersey Basin Campaign, 1997). The

Campaign focuses particularly on schools in delivering their educational programmes.

This involves training for teachers, providing water-related study programmes, and

developments of educational packages and resources such as ‘Learning through Play’

and ‘Fact Pack’. The Campaign also offers funding for educational programmes, and

links education providers to businesses for further support.

5.5 Conclusion

The first part of this chapter discussed the research methodology including the

interview design and the selections of the case studies. The Mersey Basin Campaign,

the case study, is notably based on the notion of collaborative planning, and it is a

unique example of collaborative partnership operating integrated waterside

revitalisation in the UK. It is also clear that the Campaign has a complicated

operational practice, mainly because of the multifaceted problems the Campaign deals

with.

The review of the Campaign in this chapter may show that the Campaign and its

associated RVIs present an innovative approach to river management. Although there

are limitations and difficulties associated with this experience, it does potentially offer

some useful lessons, which may assist the development of more effective river valley

management in the UK and elsewhere.

116

Chapter Six: Institutional Arrangements of the Mersey Basin Campaign

CHAPTER 6

INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS OF

THE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN

117


6.1 Introduction

A collaborative partnership approach is becoming increasingly evident as an

appropriate instrument in delivering integrated waterside revitalisation. However,

there are operational difficulties in translating the theory of collaborative planning

into the practice of partnership instruments. This chapter investigates an institutional

arrangement of a particular practice of integrated waterside revitalisation, the Mersey

Basin Campaign. This is to identify limitations and good practice, and to draw lessons

that can be applied and disseminated more widely. This chapter is structured

according to the four stages of a partnership life cycle as discussed in Chapter 4.

These four life cycle stages are: Pre-partnership Collaboration; Partnership Creation

and Consolidation; Partnership Programme Delivery; and Partnership Termination

and Succession.

6.2 Pre-partnership Collaboration Stage

The Campaign was established in responding to the social and political environments

of the North West of England in the early 1980s. In the wake of the Toxteth riots,

Michael Heseltine, the former Secretary of State for the Environment, took particular

attention to Merseyside. Following his 1981 visit to Merseyside, the Merseyside Task

Force Initiative (MTFI) was created (Cullingworth and Nadin, 1994). Initially, this

was a task force of officials from the Department of the Environment. The MTFI was

intended to bring together and concentrate the activities of central government and to

work with local government and the private sector. The MTFI aimed to find ways of

strengthening the economy and improving the environment in Merseyside (House of

Commons, 1983). Peter Walton, the former Head of the Mersey Basin Unit25, who

was involved in creating the Campaign, recalls that:

“The whole thing [the Mersey Basin Campaign] started with inner city

riots, the Toxteth riots. Following on that, Michael Heseltine set up

about 40 separated initiatives including the Merseyside Task Force

that was the origin of the Merseyside Government Office. The sprit of

innovation [of the Campaign] was started from all these initiatives.

25 Before the Campaign, Peter Walton was a civil servant in the Sports Council, one of early Merseyside initiatives in the Heseltine’s years, and in North West Regional Office, the Department of the Environment.

118


Toward the end of his activities, he looked at the river and said that it

was dreadful. Then, asked what we could do about it.”

The Campaign started as rather a political inspiration of Michael Hesetine than a

product of ‘marriage of convenience (RTPI, 1998)’, an apt expression of the common

motivation of partnership formation.

6.2.1 Building common purpose

In order to translate political ambition into reality, the Department of the Environment

produced a consultation paper, ‘Cleaning up the Mersey (Department of the

Environment, 1982)’, in November 1982. The consultation paper outlined the present

state of water quality, the problems of watersides and improvement projects that were

undertaking at that time. As identifying agreed problems is a starting point for

building common purpose (Innes, 1998), it was very straightforward for the

Campaign. Poor water quality and consequent high costs of the economic

development were already major concerns of the region. The common purpose of the

Campaign, improving water quality, was simple and widely accepted. The

consultation paper, therefore, sought for answers on ‘how to do it’ rather than ‘what to

do’. The questions raised in the consultation paper were as follows:

Are the most affected people ready and willing to tackle problems

in the Mersey Basin?

How much will it all cost and who should pay for it?

How long will it take?

What part can the different bodies (the public, private and

voluntary sectors) play?

How best can co-ordination of effort and continuing commitment

be ensured?

The consultation paper stated two main means of achieving the necessary

improvements: powers of regulation (hierarchy); and capital expenditure (market).

This might be because the consultation paper was produced in the early 1980s when

hierarchy and market approaches were accepted as means of service delivery.

However, a significant shift at that time was that the paper emphasised ‘importance of

119


interaction (networking)’ between ‘three sectors’, public, private and voluntary

sectors. This became a basis of the Campaign structure.

‘The public and private sectors, and the voluntary movements, all need

to be involved if the anticipated improvements in water quality are to

be fully capitalised upon. … The importance of interaction between

sectors should be stressed.’ (Department of the Environment, 1982)

The consultation paper was circulated widely among the many interests involved.

Following on the consultation paper, the Secretary of State held the first Mersey Basin

Campaign Conference at Daresbury in 1983 with over 200 participants.

6.2.2 Identifying Key Stakeholders

The consultation process was a main feature of the pre-partnership collaboration

stage. The consultation was part not only of building common purpose but also

identifying and networking with key stakeholders in the Mersey Basin. Interviewees

reported that stakeholders have been identified through the consultation process and

other networking developed through their daily working life. Peter Walton

emphasised significant roles of pre-existing networks in this stage of the partnership

life cycle. He reported:

“The influence of the Merseyside Task Force on the way of

[partnership] working was of enormous benefit. Within two

metropolitan counties, there were good environmental and countryside

teams into which I could plug. … And derelict land reclamation was a

good network among the local authorities. In terms of networking

[among voluntary groups] the Groundwork Trust was important. …

But each network was particular concerned with its own physical area

and subject, and there wasn’t a pre-existing network in the whole basin

area. We had to break all that down. It was a whole series of personal

contacts.”

It is clear that networks developed through pre-existing organisations are essential to

establish a new partnership in the area. The Merseyside Task Force provided area-

based knowledge and networks particularly in the area of the Estuary, which was their

120


territory. The Task Force developed a way of partnership working in the region taken

up by the government. This reflected to the formation and structure of the Campaign.

Derelict land reclamation and the Groundwork Trust26 provided useful contacts to

local governments and voluntary groups within the Basin area. The last part of Peter

Walton’s quotation refers to difficulties in breaking into the existing networks and

creating conditions for collaboration, as networking involves personal contacts and

skills. Initial contacts to wider stakeholders in this were crucial to take the partnership

forward to a creation and consolidation stage. These contacts made stakeholders

aware of the formation of the partnership, and might have encouraged them to become

part of the partnership from its first formation.

6.3 Partnership Creation and Consolidation

A year after the Mersey Basin Campaign Conference, a press conference27 was held in

March 1984 in order to begin the initial formation of the Campaign. The statement

from the press conference raised three messages: 1) we need a radical clean-up

campaign; 2) we need a new non-statutory body to run it; and 3) we need the

Department of the Environment to take the lead. This was because the need for

collaboration between the public, private and voluntary sectors has been recognised as

essential to improve water quality of the Basin. Additionally, there was the need for a

driving force to fill the vacuum of leadership in co-ordinating the environmental

management in the area. The press conference also concluded the needs for a 25-year

time-period and for two billion pounds investment based on a brief calculation from

the North West Water Authority. In March 1995, the Mersey Basin Campaign was

officially launched.

Heseltine’s political inspiration motivated the creation of the Campaign. This brought

several advantages in the establishment of the Campaign at an early stage. Unlike

other short-term initiatives in the early 1980s, the Campaign had an exceptional 25-

year long-term time scale. It was also relatively easy to bring inputs from

governmental bodies such as the Department of the Environment and the North West

Water Authority. However, persuading other stakeholders to become involved in the 26 The Groundwork Trust, formed in 1981, is a registered charity working in partnership with the local community to improve the local environment with a network of over 40 national branches.27 Press Conference On Mersey Initiative, Mersey Clean-up Initiative Moves to Third Stage (16 March 1984)

121


Campaign was problematic. This was because the common purpose of the Campaign

was to improve the water quality in relation to sustainability. As discussed in Section

4.2.2, the mostly agreed sustainability objectives of the Campaign could not be the

sole reason for all stakeholders to contribute their resources to the Campaign. This

section therefore investigates how the Campaign attracts partners to get involved and

the structure used by the Campaign to deliver its service.

6.3.1 Designing Facilitating Bodies: Flexibility

As discussed in Section 5.4.2, there have been continuous changes in the Campaign

structure. The Administration Company was established in 1996 due to a simple

accounting reason. Jeff Hinchcliffe, Campaign Chief Executive, reported:

“The way the Campaign Unit was funded was through the income that

came into the Government Office. … But, as most Government Offices

are asked to do more with less money, we were conscious that the

funding might be reduced beyond the point at which we can be

effective. … So, we asked the government to give us a grant every year,

if they want to keep the Campaign. The trouble was the Government

couldn’t make a grant to a Government Office. So, the Campaign Unit

had to come out of the Government Office and to become independent

in order to get the grant as a company.”

Although it was an accounting reason, the impact of this restructure on the attitude of

the facilitating bodies was massive. He continued:

“When the old Campaign Unit was within the Government Office, they

[Government Office] were ‘aware’ of what was going on. They didn’t

set targets, they didn’t monitor, and they didn’t account. We were very

soft focused. … What happened when the Administration Company was

born was that the Department of the Environment wanted to know

what they were getting for the annual grant. They wanted to know not

only what we actually do with the money but also why they should

want the Campaign to do that. … Suddenly, for the first time, the

122


Campaign was managed from target setting through to the delivery of

the outputs. It was a big change in the way of thinking.”

As a result of setting up the Administration Company as a subsidiary company, the

Business Foundation had to be restructured and play a more significant role in the

Campaign than simply presiding financial supports for projects. Jeff Hinchcliffe also

indicated that the Business Foundation was particularly important in terms of

inputting a business way of thinking to the Campaign.

Another structural change of the Campaign was the creation of the Campaign Council

in 1999. The Council combines the networking and advisory role of previous

meetings involving: Campaign Development Group; Mersey Basin Business

Foundation Board of Directors; Mersey Basin Campaign Administration Board of

Directors; and Mersey Basin Campaign Board (Mersey Basin Campaign, 2000b).

Although the creation of the Council was in response to the changing conditions of

the Campaign, it was largely an input from the new chairperson, Joe Dwek. Regarding

the creation of the Council, Mark Turner reported:

“The new chairman came along and didn’t feel that the existing

structure was working very effectively. I think the problem was we had

too many meetings and directors. … The Administration Company and

Business Foundation as separated organisations were doing largely

the same sort of things. The reason of having three individual

organisations perhaps doesn’t exist anymore. … It’s a response to the

changing conditions, plus a product developed by the new chairman.”

The structure of the Campaign has been changed several times for various reasons.

The Campaign has been, however, fairly consistent in keeping to the principle of

‘three-sector representation’. It is clear that the structure of the facilitating bodies

needs to adapt to changes in political and administrative environments. As Jeff

Hinchcliffe indicated, such changes have been significant but have affected only a

limited number of people, mostly the Campaign Centre staff. The research shows that

the structural reforms have been tools for managing administration at the Campaign

Centre as a facilitating body. However, the reforms have not influence the whole

Campaign partners. In the case of the Campaign, the principle of collaboration

123


between public, private, and voluntary sectors at the core of the partnership structure

has helped to deliver a consistent message to wider partners. Moreover, a

geographically-tiered approach of the Campaign might play a role in securing a

consistent support from wider partners during its numerous structural reforms. As

individual RVIs mange discrete geographical areas, the activities of individual local

initiatives were not significantly influenced by those structural reforms at the regional

centre.

6.3.2 Attracting Formal Members of the Campaign

The Mersey Basin is faced with a range of administrative, political, economic and

environmental issues. The scope and complexity of these issues in the Basin are

immense (Kidd, 1995). The complexity of waterside issues forced the Campaign to

establish a much broader vision based on the concept of sustainability that can be

agreed by most stakeholders. This enables a win-win strategy by covering wider

issues together in economic, social, and environmental decision-making. The

overarching objectives give benefits in developing common purposes between

stakeholders and prevent serious conflicts in between them. However, the

sustainability visions could not secure the stakeholder participation because it could

not generate strong commitment from stakeholders to put extra time, effort and

money into the partnership. The Campaign therefore had to develop a set of hooks to

attract waterside stakeholders in the Mersey Basin.

DIRECT HOOKS TO ATTRACT STAKEHOLDERS: RESOURCES

As discussed in Section 4.3.2, market-based hooks such as funding availability are

most popular reasons for stakeholders to get involved in a partnership. It is evident

that a European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and its preparation process

have stimulated collaboration in implementing tasks of regional issues (Martin and

Pearce, 1994).

The Council for Ministers set up the ERDF in December 1974 with the objectives of

‘correcting the principal imbalances in the Community resulting from agricultural

preponderance, industrial change and structural unemployment’ (Roberts et al., 1993).

124


A significant revision of the ERDF was agreed with the adoption of new regulations

as the introduction of the principle of programme fund by the Council of Ministers in

1984 (Nevin, 1990; and RTPI, 1994). Programme funding was another response to the

perceived needs to ensure that its funds were used to pursue a properly thought-out

strategy for regional economic development rather than support an ad hoc selection of

individual projects (Williams, 1996). In the case of the English regions the resolution

of the ERDF requirement for partnership has been strongly privileged the position of

the new integrated Government Offices (Lloyd and Meegan, 1996).

The Campaign was one of the pioneering initiatives that were awarded ERDF

programme funding. As the result of a successful application for the ERDF in 1984,

the Mersey Basin Programme was created with a total sum of 63 million pounds of

ERDF grant over the Programme Phase I and II (1984-1991). Jeff Hinchcliffe

indicated that the funding opportunity, especially the ERDF, played a significant role

in attracting stakeholders to become part of the Campaign. In particular, the ERDF of

the Mersey Basin Programme helped considerably in attracting partners in the early

years of the Campaign; as there was a narrow understanding of the concept of

partnership. Peter Walton, the former Head of Mersey Basin Campaign Unit,

reported:

“People in Macclesfield asked why they should be interested in the

Mersey Basin, so I said the River Bollin flows into the River Mersey, so

you are part of the Basin. By the way, there is a European grant. They

suddenly thought this is a good idea. The money talked. … The local

authorities were in particularly because at that time the other sources

of funding were diminishing. … Resources are much bigger than a

grant, but people got completely hooked on getting money from the

government and the EC.”

Although the ERDF was an essential element in attracting partners and stimulating

regional collaboration in the Basin area, several arguable points in relation to the

ERDF have been raised among interviewees. Firstly, the European grant played a

significant role in stimulating the motivation of being part of the Campaign. This

resulted in a lack of enthusiasm in implementing the objectives of the Campaign, as

there was less understanding of a true sense of partnership. As Lowndes and Skelcher

(1998) argue, the funding opportunity may bring the stakeholders together, but cannot

125


keep them round the table. Interviewees perceived that the partners seemed not to be

interested in implementing the tasks of the Campaign, once the initial excitement of

funding availability had declined. Peter Walton reported:

“Local authorities were always pressured for resources. They saw the

Campaign as a mean to supply funding sources. If it wasn’t in

satisfaction, they were almost in a way of attacking the Campaign at a

certain time because we couldn’t deliver what they wanted.”

Therefore, the Campaign needed to change the views of the partners in a way of

collaborative working to deliver its programme.

Secondly, the water industry had become privatised during the Mersey Basin

Programme. The North West Water Authority that was a key partner of the Campaign

became the North West Water Company. Although it was agreed to spend the two-

third of the European grant on water quality improvement (and the one-third on

landward regeneration), the EC concerned that the Mersey Basin Programme grant

might create substantial benefits to the privatised water company, as Peter Walton

reported. As consequent, this caused the waterside to have less European grants in the

future.

INDIRECT HOOKS TO ATTRACT STAKEHOLDERS: ADDED VALUES

Although it is not as obvious as a market-oriented hook, the credibility of the

Campaign has been also identified as a hook to attract stakeholders in the Mersey

Basin. This credibility of the Campaign comes because it is a regional partnership

initiative with central government support. Apart from the obvious market-oriented

resources such as the ERDF, the Campaign’s supporting role in securing external

funding of the partners has also been identified as a hook to partners. Gwen White,

former Community Officer of the Campaign, reported:

“Advantages of the Campaign are its regional role and a kind of the

DETR’s support. Nowadays, every funding application has to show the

synergy of the interests in a partnership. I think that helped [attract

partners]. Planners learnt to see benefits of being a part of a bigger

organisation.”

126


This added value can be seen at a process of the involvement of the North West Water

Authority28 (NWWA) that has been a key partner of the Campaign since the

beginning. Prior to privatisation, water managers were located within quangos, the

regional water authorities such as the NWWA. Since reorganisation of the water

industry (Department of the Environment, 1973) in 1974, the North West Water

Authority have been responsible for the management of the whole water cycle of the

Mersey catchment as well as the other river basins in Lancashire and Cumbria. As a

result, for much of the 1970s, water managers were promoting major public

investment projects such as dams and reservoirs (Rees, 1990). In 1978 the NWWA

issued their consultation document on long-term objectives including a specific water

quality objectives to improve the rivers in the Mersey catchment to Class 2 (fair,

supporting fishes). As a result the water treatment investment caused the increases in

water bills, the water authorities were needed to justify their public accountability to

the central government.

There are four explanations of the early involvement of the NWWA in the Campaign.

Firstly, the NWWA had a shared common purpose improving water quality of the

Mersey Basin. Secondly, major improvement projects of the NWWA had been

undertaken in the Mersey Basin before the Campaign. Their 170 million pounds

programme to improve the Mersey Estuary was already well on the way even before

the Campaign’s consultation paper published. Thirdly, the government had supported

the Authority’s long-term aims in principle, and the Campaign had been initially

developed as a government initiative with a political inspiration. These governmental

backgrounds had bonded two organisations to develop strategies together. Finally, and

most importantly, the Campaign can strengthen the public accountability of the

NWWA to the government. Additionally, the Campaign may give the Authority a

high priority when allocating external finance.

The evidence of these added values of the Campaign as a regional strategic

partnership between public, private and voluntary sectors can be found widely in

involvements of other partners. Interviewees indicated that the regulatory agencies,

such as the Environment Agency, saw an opportunity for wider consultation by being

a part of the Campaign. Business sectors saw the potential for promoting a positive

image of the company and better public relations by working within the sustainable

28 Former North West Water, and now United Utilities.

127


issues. In this context, Mark Turner, River Valley Initiatives Manager, emphasised the

significance of publicity that the Campaign can generate:

“The main reason for the companies getting involved with the

Campaign is that it a good PR for them. They want to associate with

something, which is positive. The Campaign won the World River prize

in 1999, so they become part of the Campaign and get more publicity

of that.”

6.3.3 Attracting Informal Members of the Campaign

INFORMAL MEMBERSHIPS: MEMBERS OF THE MERSEY BASIN TRUST

Informal membership is mainly related to voluntary groups and members of the

general public in the area. In this context, members of the Trust may represent

informal members of the Campaign. Members of the Trust consist of community

groups, voluntary organisations, schools, individuals, parish councils and small

businesses. This free membership is over 600 in 1999 and the numbers are increasing

(Table 6.2).

Table 6.0.17 The Mersey Basin Trust Membership: 1991 -1999

Year Full Associate Total1991/2 134 18 1521992/3 174 50 2241993/4 210 109 3191994/5 269 168 4371995/6 288 234 5221996/7 308 251 5591997/8 320 256 5761998/9 341 267 608

Note: Full memberships include community groups and voluntary organisations, and associate memberships include schools, individuals, parish councils and small businesses.Source: Mersey Basin Trust (1999)

128


Caroline Downey, the Director of the Trust, reported the role of the Campaign in the

community participation as a facilitator:

“There are people out there who are already doing things. … What we

are trying to do is to work as glue. We aren’t there to duplicate. We

aren’t there to reinvent the wheel. The wheel is there and going

around. We are there to oil it.”

Interviewees from the voluntary sector indicated that the benefits of becoming part of

the Campaign are: 1) small funding opportunities as the group must to be a member to

apply for the Trust fund; 2) expertises and helps from the Trust and other member

partners of the Campaign when undertaking practical projects; 3) credibility and

strengthening when they speak to the local authorities in discussing their projects; and

4) feelings of comfort in being part of bigger organisations. Additionally, bigger

partner organisations from both the public and private sectors such as the DETR, the

Environment Agency, the North West Water, ICI, and so on, give the Campaign an

added credibility to attract smaller organisations including voluntary groups.

Nonetheless, this free membership causes that member organisations may not take

memberships seriously. A representative of the Trust members, the Water Recovery

Group, reported:

“ They [the Trust] sent us an information pack and a membership

application form. We just signed up because it was a free membership.

Since then, the Campaign sent us their newsletters and we got involved

in some events they organised from time to time. That’s all.”

However, it is evident that voluntary groups who are also members of their local RVI

are more actively involved in the Campaign’s activities. This is because the RVIs

provide closer interactions between local interest groups focusing on their local

watercourse issues. The Campaign’s geographically-tiered approach brought

waterside projects to the level of local watercourse communities. This enables local

communities to commit and focus on their neighbourhood watercourses rather than on

the basin as a whole. As the result, the Campaign is able to facilitate involvements

from local communities more effectively in revitalising local watercourses.

129


ATTRACTING INFORMAL MEMBERS

The Mersey Basin Campaign is using a top-down approach in relation to its

geographically-tiered approach in attracting the general public to the Campaign

activities. As discussed in Section 3.4.3, the community involvement in waterside

revitalisation needs a driving force to stimulate local awareness. This is because the

waterside issues are not a top priority of community groups that may generate

community participation as a bottom-up approach. However, the Campaign brings

down its vision to the local community level and facilitates community involvement

to develop a sense of stewardship. The Campaign, then, facilitates the community

involvement to the partnership level and enables the community to act within the

vision of the partnership.

Figure 6.1 illustrates the community context of the Mersey Basin Campaign. The

Campaign found that creating and developing a ‘sense of ownership’ of the

watercourses among local communities is an important task in order to encourage the

local populations in the Basin to value their waterside environments. To achieve this

the Campaign has directed a great deal of effort to enhance communication

(information and interaction) with the community through its geographically-tiered

approach (top-down). This may encourage community groups to cherish their local

waterside environments and become involved in Campaign activities (bottom-up).

Firstly, the Campaign offers information on local watercourses to local communities

through education programmes, publications such as periodic reports and newsletters,

and private partner’s advertisements (Figure 6.2). Education and awareness

programmes to local communities have been developed in securing importance of

their waterside environments. In this way the benefits from community involvement

are clearly communicated to the local population, and the community feels more

confident to become involved; by understanding how they can take control for their

futures and take actions that really affect their quality of life.

130


Figure 6.0.23 The Community Context of the Mersey Basin Campaign

Source: Author

Figure 6.0.24 A Partner’s Advertisement on Water Quality Improvement, NWW

Source: Mersey Basin Campaign (1997)

With respect to public involvement in the Campaign, one interviewee reported on the

value of communication in giving information to generate public interests and

awareness in a local area. At a public consultation interview regarding to the amenity

and wildlife value of Kirkby Brook29, a local resident pointed out that:

29 The author took part in the consultation interview as a part of the Wildlife Trust workshop in 4th September 1999.

Community Social EventsEvents of cleaning-up

watercourses, giving the opportunity for contact with local

wildlife, and involving walking along the watercourses

Stewardship

Information

Communication

Media & Awareness ProgrammesNewsletters, Education & Awareness Programmes, Publications, and Partners

Advertisements

Interaction

Market

Community

Involvement

Information Interaction

Communication

Network Hierarchy

Top-down (Tiered approach)

Bottom-up

Sharing Information

clear idea of what community needs and can do, then provide base information for the local strategies, such as LEAPs

Sharing Resourcesfunding from other partners and manpower from community volunteers

Formal Members

hip

InformalMembers

hip

131


“They [Groundwork Trust] have done all the work for this pond

[Kirkby Brook restoration project]. After that, the Groundwork used to

send their newsletters to my house ... It was good to know what the

Groundwork is doing in this area and other parts of the city. But it’s

pity that they don’t send us the newsletters any more.”

For the second communication method, the Campaign encourages interactions

between individual members of the community by providing some social events in

relation to their local watercourses. This may include events of cleaning-up

watercourse, guided walks, wildlife educations and social BBQs on watersides. For

example, the Alt 2000 RVI, one of the more active RVIs, has provided touring

environmental theatres in school, and has organised clean-ups and community

barbecues, ‘Alt Walks’, and ‘Environmental Week’, ‘Alt 2000 Spring Tide

Spectacular’. These kinds of events become opportunities for both interactions

between individuals and education by discussing about the local watercourse

environments.

When a community group is involved in Campaign activities, there are two kinds of

participation. First, the community groups may become formal members of the

Campaign to act as members in co-ordinating committees in regional or local levels,

i.e. the Campaign Council and the Steering groups in the RVIs. In those committees,

the community groups communicate (sharing information and interacting) with other

partners. Sharing information can build clear ideas of what the community needs from

and can do for their waterside environments. This also provides base information in

establishing a strategy of local watercourses such as LEAPs. Interaction by sharing

resources, such as funding from other partners and manpower from community

groups, enables the effective project implementation.

Second, the community groups may become informal members of the Campaign in

participating practical projects to improve their local watercourses. In this context, a

process of community involvement in the Campaign may begin from cleaning-up

events. Stream and river clean-up projects may result in visible effects of what the

community can do for their watercourses. This may increase a willingness of

maintaining and keeping an eye on their environments. Speaking from her experience

132


as a member of Friends of Healey Dell, Caroline Downey explained a process of

generating stewardship by undertaking clean-up events:

“We have gone through the process of doing the clean-ups for two or

three years. … When you are working with them, they come to the

point where they turn around and say ‘Why the hell are we out here

every two or three weeks and cleaning up this rubbish? Who is putting

it here?’ … That’s what the group gets to. They want to stop this.

That’s what our group is looking at the moment, campaigning and

writing to local authorities and the Environment Agency [to make sure

keep the area clean]. The community is starting to stand up and shout.

That is the process [of empowering the communities] beyond the

clean-ups.”

Throughout this, increased stewardship of their waterside environments enables the

communities to become involved in or organise further waterside improvement

projects. This may extend to other projects for improving their living environments.

6.4 Partnership Programme Delivery Stage

As discussed in Chapter 4, partnership service delivery is based on three key aspects

of integrated waterside revitalisation: consensus building; facilitation; and open

participation. In this context, six in-depth case studies in the Campaign activities will

be investigated in Chapter 7. Therefore, this section explores overall aspects of the

Campaign’s service delivery, particularly, in relation to its institutional arrangement.

6.4.1 Network-oriented Service Delivery

It is clear that partners became involved in the Campaign for various reasons. These

may be related to resources and added values. As Lowndes and Skelcher (1998)

argue, funding (opportunities) can bring partners together, but it cannot keep them

round the table or persuade them to work on the vision of the partnership. One of the

interviewees who had been involved in a RVI at the early years of the Campaign

reported:

133


“I remember a person coming from a local authority who used to keep

telling us, ‘I am doing this out of interest, this is not in my job

description’. That is what he has been told. He couldn’t really justify

the time he spent [on the Campaign activities]. So, he came to the

meetings, but he found difficulties to do anything very much [between

meetings], because it wasn’t in his work programme”

The Campaign developed collaborative arenas that can bring partners together and

stimulate their commitments on waterside revitalisation. Most of all, the Campaign

had to change attitudes of partners from compartmentalised working practice towards

collaborative thinking. During the early year of the Campaign much of its time was

spent in spreading awareness of its vision and persuading other organisations to work

towards its objectives (Kidd and Shaw, 2000). Interviewees reported that the most

difficult part at the early stage was to develop an understanding of the collaborative

concept among partners. Peter Walton, the former Head of the Campaign Unit,

reported:

“In the early years of the Campaign, North West Water proposed to

have a flagship project in an early improvement scheme. Beyond their

programme they wanted to see the actual class changes from Class 3

to Class 2 in a specific area. They asked which area they should look

at. There was no one who suggested North West Water to invest in

their area… No one had been asked before. … It was a completely new

approach, so nobody know how to respond to such a genuine special

offer.”

Interviewees who are partner representatives to the Campaign indicated that the

feeling of achievement in the partnership helped encourage their commitment to

undertaking tasks for the partnership. Stuart Roberts, a former representative of

Cheshire County Council, reported:

“I come to the Campaign because it differs from what I do in day-to-

day practice. I can see something is happening because of what we do

in the group. … It’s a rewarding job, actually.”

134


Speaking from her experience working with the Alt 2000 RVI in the early years,

Gwen White valued the activities of voluntary groups in stimulating a feeling of

achievements. She reported:

“When we started the River Valley Initiatives, it was quite difficult to

get the concept across. To get things going while we were talking

about the aims and objectives and getting funding in, we encouraged

the voluntary groups to get out there, do things, engage with people,

show them something is happening and show them you can change

something. … The voluntary and community sectors provide some of

visual outcome for the Campaign. … That gets the thing kick started

while the statutory and private sector organisations were trying to get

into their board or get funding.”

The Campaign is based on a network mode of governance by bringing all sectors with

equal voices. In order to develop a collaborative notion in the partnerships,

interviewees emphasised the importance of the role of facilitators (chair and co-

ordinator) at the meetings. A success of a collaborative partnership may depend on the

skills of facilitators. Interviewees reported that steering groups or committees are

better to be chaired by a person who does not represent a strong interest of a singular

issue.

Interviewees also acknowledged the hierarchical position of representatives in their

parent organisations. The right level of representation is important. A more senior

level of representation is required in committees seeking a strategic overview.

However, senior level representation may not suit a working group that deals with

practical aspects. Additionally, some interviewees who involve in the RVIs also

indicated that the representation in the Steering Groups gradually slides down the

hierarchy. Inappropriate representation may slow down the process of implementation

because the representative may have to go back to the parent organisation to make

decisions or find relevant resources and information. Furthermore, the research found

that there are frequent changes of representatives because they have to move out due

to their job changes. However, representatives from voluntary groups tend to stay in

the group longer than other sectors. This is because their interests tend to be lifetime

135


commitments and do not depend on their job descriptions. In relation to another issue

on the representation, Gwen White reported:

“People are coming from particular viewpoints. They have to. It’s

their job. The purpose and value of the meetings are being able to see

where they are coming from. It’s not about getting them to change

their viewpoints, because they can’t. … But, it’s about sharing those

with the others to see and understand. It’s learning. Even if I don’t like

what others are saying, but I understand why they are saying it. I know

what I have to work with, so I start looking for the solution.

Understanding and learning are the value of the whole Mersey Basin

Campaign, I think.”

There are two important issues in her dialogue. Firstly, a collaborative arena requires

diverse interests from individual partners to deliver its service. The collaborative

approach is not just consensus building or conflict resolution that targets an agreement

as a final product. The collaborative arena is not a place for bringing everybody

together and making everybody to have the same viewpoint and opinion. The arena is

to co-ordinate diverse interests and to work to an agreed goal. The collaborative

approach needs a consensus in which all partners are agreed on what they are going to

do. It also requires individual interests and particular viewpoints to implement tasks

of the partnership. This individuality may enable to bring resources and information

from a much wider group of partners.

Secondly, understanding and learning are essential for effective service delivery.

Understanding of other interests in the arena enables representatives to see and work

for a wider vision of the Basin as a whole rather than a narrow view of a single

organisation. The research found that recognition of the wider vision might shift the

attitude of representatives towards a collaborative working. As communication is

content of information sharing and interaction, Peter Batey, Chair of Alt 2000 RVI

and Mersey Strategy RVI, reported:

“At some point in each meeting, I intentionally ask every member to

update what has happened since the last meeting. This gives an

opportunity for everybody to speak and for building understanding of

what others are doing. It also persuades them to work on our tasks in

136


between meetings because they have to say something at this time. …

We have time to have a casual chat apart from the formal procedure of

the meetings. These moments are also important to network with other

participants informally. The amount of information you can get from

these informal chats is enormous. It can be about the inside story of the

organisations. It can be about a new funding opportunity coming out in

the near future.”

Interviewees indicated that they have not changed their viewpoints on waterside

issues while working within the partnership. However, they have changed their views

on the partnership working. William Crookshank, representative of the Mersey

(Estuary) Strategy RVI from the Environment Agency, reported:

“I haven’t changed my view on the estuary issues, but I certainly

changed my view on how the partnership works. When I was told to go

to the Mersey Strategy initially, I thought ‘why do I have to go to a

partnership, though we can do it better ourselves.’ Now, I know what a

partnership can do. So, I will be happy to get involved in another

partnership when I move out from the Mersey Strategy RVI.”

It is now clear that the value of a collaborative partnership is not all about achieving

the common goal. Although it is not obvious to quantify, networks and

understandings developed through a collaborative process can be also outcomes of the

partnership. The William Crookshank’s dialogue shows that his experience of getting

involved in Campaign activities transformed his viewpoints on the way of the

partnership working and his attitude to work to collaborative efforts. This may

encourage future collaboration in the area, even though there will be no obvious hook

such as funding opportunities attracting stakeholders.

6.4.2 Outcomes of the Collaborative Approach

Through interviews and observations undertaken by the author, it is generally evident

that the activities of the Campaign show positive prospective in relation to Innes’

criteria, which discussed in Table 4.2, Section 4.3.3.30 However, as her criteria are

30 The evidence can be found in six in-depth case studies in Chapter 7.

137


limited on consensus building, these may not be able to assess fully on the outcomes

of waterside revitalisation, as facilitation and open participation are also important in

its service delivery. Additionally, it is difficult to evaluate the outcomes of a whole

Campaign prospective. This is because the Campaign covers a wide range of issues.

Therefore, different locations and projects of the Campaign activities reflect different

results in evaluating the Innes’ criteria. It has been also realised that it is almost

impossible to examine the effectiveness of collaborative approaches without accurate

tools to measure the outcomes of sustainability objectives. Considering all, this

research focuses on whom the outcomes are effective to and what alternative ways are

to justify the accountability of the outcomes.

EFFECTIVENESS TO WHOM?

The outcomes in a collaborative partnership are wider than just achieving the common

purpose of the partnership. The research found that representatives within the

collaborative arena generally agree on the wider scope of the outcomes from

collaborative actions. They valued the process of the collaborative approach as well as

its final product of achieving objectives. For example, solving conflicts may be a final

product. However, the process of conflict resolution may generate a wider scope of

outcomes such as feelings of achievement and better understanding between

representatives in the arena. Although these ‘hidden values’ of collaborative

approaches are widely accepted between representatives in the collaborative arena, it

is much more complicated to make people outside of the arena understand about the

wider prospective of the collaborative outcomes. This is related to the Innes’ criteria

O9: learning and knowledge produced within the consensus process were shared by

others beyond the immediate group (see Table 4.2, Section 4.3.3). In this context, the

feedback process of representatives to their parent organisations is significant.

However, it is almost impossible to achieve an ideal collaborative approach unless

there is a total transformation in the whole planning system.

Stakeholders become part of the collaborative partnership with different stakes. They

have to satisfy their initial purposes of becoming involved in the partnership. For

example, businesses should get publicity opportunities to promote positive image of

companies. Local authorities should get funding opportunities. Regulatory agencies

138


should get wider consultation opportunities. Voluntary groups should also get what

they wanted from the partnership. However, most importantly, the partnership should

also achieve its primary goals. In the case of the Campaign, the primary objectives are

water quality improvement, landward regeneration and community participation.

ENGAGING WATER QUALITY TO ECONOMIC REGENERATION

Since 1985, there have been the great strides in water quality improvement in the

Mersey Basin where the percentage of river length classed as being of ‘good’ or ‘fair’

quality – that is clean enough to support fish – has doubled by the year 2000. Periodic

surveys of fish numbers and species reveal that almost 80% of the 219 watercourses

sampled contain fish of some kind and around 34% support the pollution-sensitive

brown trout (Mersey Basin Campaign, 1997). Nevertheless, population, health and

species diversity does vary markedly. The aspiration of the Campaign is that by 2010

all watercourses in the Basin will be of ‘good’ or ‘fair’ quality.

Water quality has been a primary issue in the Campaign’s aims. This is because water

quality is a most obvious way to measure the outcomes of the Campaign. It was also

an initial aspiration of the establishment of the Campaign. There is a linkage between

the Campaign’s investment in sewage treatment plants and water quality in rivers

(Mersey Basin Campaign, 1997). However, the Campaign has made an effort to

engage the first objective to the second one; the water quality improvement to

regional economic regeneration. Peter Walton, the former Head of the Campaign

Unit, reported that:

“The things that people see and think as the Mersey Basin Campaign

improves our lives are often the cheapest, the things can be seen, for

example, waterside parks, small-scale footpaths, and so on. Huge

expenditure has spent on the sewage treatment work, but you don’t get

much credit for that except that fishes come back.”

The Campaign is succeeding in meeting the target of the water quality objective with

2.5 billion pound investments. The enormous investment of the Campaign to improve

water quality has been generally perceived professionals who involve in revitalisation

of the Basin. However this is not always perceived the general public. Although the

139


water quality improvement is measurable and essential for environmental

sustainability of the region, its socio-economic impact to the region is not as obvious

as the water quality statistics.

On the other hand, a significant number of large-scale landward regeneration projects

in the Basin have been carried out by the Urban Development Corporations. Intense

economic regeneration in the region has been implemented by Urban Development

Grants, Derelict Land Grants, Enterprise Zones, Regional Selective Assistance, City

Challenges, Inner City Task Forces and Inner City Partnerships. In this context, the

Campaign has a limitation in getting directly involved in the major economic

regeneration projects of the region. This is because the notion of network-oriented

approaches simply cannot implement large-scale regeneration projects. Furthermore,

these single-minded and short-term regeneration initiatives could not find a mutual

benefit of becoming part of the Campaign. Therefore, the Campaign was established

to forge an explicit link between good water quality and economic development. The

rationale is founded on the fundamental recognition that without good water quality –

aesthetically, chemically and biologically, then efforts at comprehensive regeneration

will either founder or will be only partly realised. Stuart Roberts, a representative of

Cheshire County Council, reported:

“Improving water quality means more attractive areas for recreation

uses on the water that promote new types of recreation. … If it is

polluted water, then people try to avoid contact with the water. … A

good water quality means that housing development is coming out

along the waterside.”

The research found that the linkage between water quality and economic regeneration

has been widely accepted among interviewees who are actively involved in the

Campaign. However, the linkage was questionable between interviewees who are not

part of the Campaign. Therefore, there was a need to secure the accountability of the

Campaign’s water quality and landward regeneration objectives. The Campaign,

North West Water and the Environment Agency commissioned a university research

group to produce a report; ‘The Relationship between Water Quality and Economic

Regeneration in the Mersey Basin’ based on a questionnaire survey to property

valuers. This was published in 1998 (Handley et al. 1998) and provided, subject to

140


criticism, evidence supporting the notion that investments to improve water quality is

an essential component in achieving the aim of continued economic regeneration.

The report found that an importance of water in the property development is directly

reflected in enhanced rental premiums for waterside property, ranging from 0-15% for

offices, 0-25% for leisure-related property and 10-40% for residential property.

Generally, aesthetic quality is more important for commercial property, with physical

water quality becoming relatively more important through leisure to residential

property. However, water quality is different from other factors in the development

process insofar as it exerts an influence at a number of different levels. These can be

identified as direct, indirect and intrinsic benefits. These also can be equated with the

stimulation of direct economic regeneration, image building and the achieving of

water quality for its own sake and as a part of sustainability (Figure 6.3). If good

water quality is not in place, either in aesthetic or chemical/biological terms, then

development will not be prejudiced. Those estimated economic benefits through

valuing waterside location might also have important policy implications for

waterside property developments (Garrod and Willis, 1994).

Figure 6.0.25 The Relationship Between Water Quality and Economic

Regeneration

Source: (Handley et al. 1998)

ACCOUNTABILITY TO COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

The Campaign as an institution needs to be accountable. Although water quality

improvement is scientifically measurable, it is difficult to judge how effectively the

second and third objectives, improving waterside environments and encouraging local

stewardship, have been achieved. As discussed earlier in this section, the Campaign

puts an effort to engage the issues of water quality improvement to those of landward

141


regeneration by supporting the notion that investments to improve water quality is an

essential component in achieving the aim of continued economic regeneration in the

region. However, the third objective, community participation, is more problematic in

defining outcomes of community works. This is because a partnership, as an

institution, has to deal with accountability and organisations outside of the

collaborative arena. In the case of the Mersey Basin Campaign, it can be seen in a

tension between the Trust and the Campaign Centre (the Administration Company

before the restructure) as most interviewees indicated. Causes of the tension within

the facilitating body may be summarised in three headings.

Firstly, the Campaign Centre and the Trust have a significant different understanding

in the objectives of community participation. Caroline Downey, the Director of the

Trust, reported that:

“As far as the Campaign [Centre]’s concern, their ideal of what we

should be doing is community involvement, community involvement in

clean-ups, community involvement in tree plantings, community

involvement in doing things to reach their target … Ours is to build the

strength of the community as much as to improve the physical

waterside environments. I think that is key point of how we differ.”

The waterside issues involve the definition of sustainable development that implies

empowerment, participation and changing attitudes (Rydin, 1998). The Trust aims to

stimulate local stewardship and empower communities by using aspects of waterside

issues. On the other hand, the Campaign Centre aims to improve waterside

environments by using the input from the local environmental groups.

Secondly, the role of the Trust in the Campaign is unclear. One of main roles of the

Trust was a supporting mechanism to the RVIs. However, this responsibility is now

transferred to a RVI manager in the Campaign and the link between the Trust and the

RVIs is weakened. The expertise and experiences of the Trust in the community

participation may not be fully translated to the practice of the RVIs. Although the

Trust and the Centre seem to agree that local stewardship is an essential element of

their objectives, the Centre may consider that encouraging stewardship is mainly the

role of the RVIs rather than one of the Trust.

142


The third cause of this tension is the need for accountability of the Trust activities to

the government. Peter Wilson, Government Office of North West, reported that:

“The Trust gets a grant from the Government Office as a part of the

grant we give to the Campaign. So, the Campaign needs to report back

to us what they have done with the government money. … A number of

community projects is one of requirements in these reports.”

Two parties, the Trust and the Centre, have got different viewpoints in valuing and

measuring effectiveness of community works. Speaking from these three aspects,

there is a question that can be raised. Who are the clients?

The client of the Trust is clearly the local community as the Trust aims to strengthen

local communities. Sibongile Pradhan, Community Officer of the Mersey Basin Trust,

reported:

“The numbers don’t tell the real results of the community work. The

numbers of clean-up events are not for sustainable development and

strengthening communities. … It [community participation] is a long

term. In order to build up a strong community, it needs about 10 visits

to produce their own action plan. But with this amount of work, 3-4

clean up project can be done.”

The client of the Campaign Centre is the government. The Centre wants the Trust to

achieve a certain amount of community work because they need the statistic numbers

in order to satisfy the government requirement and secure future funding from the

government. The Campaign uses the increasing numbers of the Trust membership as

an evidence of commitment from the voluntary sector. There are obvious

disagreements and misunderstandings between the Trust, the Centre and the

government.

In order to solve the conflict, the Campaign is planning to change the funding

structure of the Trust. Two options are raised from interviewees. Firstly, the

Campaign Centre is to commission the Trust to meet their target so that the Campaign

can get what they pay for. Secondly, the Trust pursuits independent funding from the

government, as they point out that the current joint grant with the Campaign Centre

may cause the conflict. This will enable them to be independent from the Campaign in

143


terms of the resource sharing. However, these changes in the funding structure will

not solve the initial conflict from the goal incompatibility, disagreements in their aims

and scope of communities.

6.7 Partnership Termination or Succession Stage

A partnership is generally assumed to run only for a limited period. The time limit for

the Mersey Basin Campaign is the year 2010 that is the limit currently set by the

government to fund the Campaign Centre. An exit strategy of the Campaign has not

been set at the time of writing. The Campaign plans to establish the exit strategy in

2005 so as to set a more accurate exit strategy towards the end of the programme.

This is because of a considerable change in the Campaign structure and the agenda of

its activities in the recent years.

There are three possible exit strategies for the partnership: 1) a complete termination

of the partnership; 2) a succession of the partnership as an institution; and 3) a

succession of the partnership activities by member partners after the termination of

the partnership institution. Interviewees are generally confident that the Campaign

may continue in some aspects after the year 2010. Although they consider a

possibility of an extended government grant enabling the success of the Campaign

institution, the third option is the most expected exit strategy among the interviewees.

Mark Turner, RVI Manager, reported that:

“The RVIs might continue, the membership of the Trust might

continue. I think something will continue. … Perhaps by the year 2010,

water quality won’t be such a focus as it’s getting better. Perhaps

there will be new things to do. … So, the Campaign can be more

leisure-based or more recreational-based.”

In order to secure that the activities of the partnership can be sustained even after the

partnership termination, the partnership needs to develop a clear exit strategy in both

the institutional arrangement and the vision reflecting necessary future activities. The

most important aspect in the exit strategy is to develop strong networks between

partner organisations that may last longer after the termination than other modes of

governance, hierarchies and markets. Networks between member partners may enable

144


further collaboration in the future. The Campaign’s geographically-tiered approach

may benefit its exit strategy, as there is a strong possibility that the RVIs as

independent initiatives may continue their services after a possible termination of the

Campaign.

6.8 Conclusion

Conflict potentially increases when there is: 1) high goal incompatibility; 2) high

activity interdependence; and 3) limited resources to compete (Schmidt and Kochan,

1986). The Campaign has created common purposes and comprehensive interactions

between member partners. However, there has not been a strong tension in sharing

resources in the Campaign’s collaborative arena. This has enabled the common

purpose of the Campaign to be generally accepted between wider stakeholders in the

Basin. In addition, the Campaign needed to develop broad objectives based on

sustainability issues in order to allow a win-win strategy in its objectives.

Nonetheless, objectives with no tension could not act as a stimulus to make

stakeholders become involved in the partnership. Despite the fact that poor water

quality was a problem in the region, the benefit that improved water quality might

bring was not a main concern of all stakeholders.

As the motivation of taking part of the Campaign could not be generated as a bottom-

up approach, the Campaign needed a driving force to stimulate the motivation among

stakeholders. The most obvious hooks to attract stakeholders were resources, in

particular, the ERDF at the early years of the Campaign. Additionally, the credibility

of the Campaign as an umbrella initiative with government supports acted as another

kind of hook to attract stakeholders. It is also apparent that the pre-existing networks

in the Basin helped establish the Campaign in a way of partnership working,

identifying stakeholders and providing local knowledge.

An informal approach and network mode of governance are fundamental elements of

the collaborative arena, especially for its service delivery. In order to deliver its

service, the Campaign needed to transform the attitude of member partners from the

compartmental working practice towards the collaborative way of working. Dialogue

in the arena developed a comprehensive understanding of each partner’s perspectives

of the Basin. It also enabled participants to see a wider vision of the Basin as a whole

145


rather than one of a narrow interest of their parent organisation. Together with this

understanding and broader vision, feelings of achievement that the participants may

get from the arena helped encourage them to contribute to the Campaign’s objectives.

The outcomes of collaborative actions are more widely defined within the

collaborative arena than the outside of the arena. However, establishing outcomes is

more problematic when they need to be accountable from the outside organisations.

This is partly because there is no accurate tool to measure how the sustainability

objectives are achieved. However, there are also many ‘hidden’ outcomes of a

collaborative approach. It is evident that an informal approach and networking played

a significant role for a partnership’s formation and its service delivery. Furthermore,

networking is also important in the exit strategy of the partnership so as to sustain the

vision of the partnership after the termination.

The sustainability objectives of the Campaign were a ‘necessary evil’ in the

Campaign. The sustainability was widely accepted among stakeholders, but the

intractable issues around sustainability are apparent in attracting stakeholders to

become involved, persuading them to work for the objectives and accounting the

outcomes. It is clear that dialogue in the collaborative arena leading to comprehensive

understandings is a fundamental element in delivering the partnership services.

However, there is a need to explore how a collaborative partnership delivers its

services in practice. This will be investigated in Chapter 7, particularly, focusing on

six case studies within the Campaign activities.

146

Chapter Seven: The Mersey Basin Campaign in Practice

Chapter Seven

THE MERSEY BASIN CAMPAIGN

IN PRACTICE

147


7.1 Introduction

In Chapter 6, the institutional arrangement of the Mersey Basin Campaign has been

investigated according to the four life cycles of partnerships. Focusing on the

partnership programme delivery stage of the Campaign, this chapter will explore the

three aspects of the collaborative partnership within Campaign activities: consensus

building; facilitation; and open participation. Undertaking six in-depth case studies,

two for each individual aspect, this chapter will investigate the practice of service

delivery in a particular collaborative partnership. Each case study will look for lessons

can be learnt from the experience of the Campaign in a real-life context. This chapter

judges the applicability of theory and principles of collaborative approaches to the

practice of planning.

7.2 Consensus Building in Practice

This section draws on the results of two case studies investigating how a consensus

building process can be applied to a process of integrated waterside revitalisation in

the Campaign. As discussed, the effective consensus building process is heavily

related to meeting management skills that have already been the subject of a

considerable amount of research (Susskind et al., 1999b). Therefore, this case study

investigates how the consensus building process can influence to the process of

waterside revitalisation in particular.

The Mersey Estuary Management Project, as the first case study of this section

explores working practices of consensus building in aspects of regulating an

integrated management plan and its implementation. The second case study, the

Campaign Council and Manifesto Pledge Groups, investigates how a consensus

building process can be implemented in managing and maintaining a partnership

body. The Mersey Estuary Management Project is implemented by a well-established

partnership, the Mersey Strategy. Whilst, the Campaign Council and Manifesto

Pledge Groups are relatively recently established as outcome of restructuring the

Campaign in 1999.

148


7.2.1 The Mersey Estuary Management Project

This detailed case study explores how a concrete example of collaborative

partnerships, the Mersey Strategy, can operate for integrated estuary management by

means of a consensus building process. In carrying out this case study, nine semi-

structured interviews have been undertaken: eight partner representatives of the

Mersey Strategy partnership; and a planner from a local authority who implements the

Mersey Estuary Management Plan (a outcome of consensus building) have been

undertaken. Additionally, an annual conference, Mersey Estuary Forum, and a three-

day seminar relation to the Mersey Strategy have been observed (Appendix 1).

BACKGROUND TO THE MERSEY ESTURARY MANAGEMENT PROJECT

The Mersey Strategy is one element of the Mersey Basin Campaign and covers the

Mersey Estuary (Figure 7.1), the tidal part of the River Mersey, which extends from

Liverpool Bay in the Irish Sea up to the tidal limit at Howley Weir in the town of

Warrington some 30 kilometres from the coast. The Estuary has suffered from

industrial pollution and the discharge of domestic wastewater since the Industrial

Revolution. By the late 1950s there were no fish in the river and the system was

effectively ‘dead’(Jones, 2000).

In 1989, the proposed construction of a tidal barrage across the lower reaches of the

Mersey prompted the suggestion that a plan be prepared for the Estuary. The

Campaign commissioned University consultants to produce a Mersey Estuary

Management Plan (MEMP) in 1992. This was published in 1995 (University of

Liverpool Study Team, 1995) and provided a strategic policy framework for

integrated estuary management in the Mersey Estuary. The MEMP is based on:

“a vision of the future of the Mersey Estuary as one of the cleanest

developed estuaries in Europe, where the quality and dynamics of the

natural environment are recognised and respected and are matched by

a high quality built environment, a vibrant maritime economy, and an

impressive portfolio of estuary-related tourism and recreation

facilities. The MEMP [would] provide a framework for coordinated

action. The Plan [would] be a key instrument in addressing critical

management issues so as to secure the sustainable development of the

149


Mersey Estuary and to maintain and develop its position as one of

region’s most valued environmental assets.” (University of Liverpool

Study Team, 1995: p12)

Figure 7.0.26 The Area Covered by the Mersey Strategy

Source: Kim and Batey (2000)

The Campaign’s Estuary Project Group took up the task of implementing the Mersey

Strategy. The Strategy is to build strength into an integrated approach to the overall

management and development of the Mersey Estuary. The implementation process for

the Mersey Strategy provides a good example of a collaborative partnership in action.

The Strategy has been translated into the Mersey Estuary Action Programme (MEAP)

through a comprehensive consensus building process (Mersey Strategy, 1998; and

Mersey Strategy, 2000b). The MEMP and the MEAP together form part of a Local

Environment Agency Plan (LEAP)31 of the Estuary coverage, Lower Mersey LEAP,

31 The Local Environment Agency Plans are methods of river catchment management for the sustainable development developed by the Environment Agency. LEAPs help to identify, assess and resolve local environmental problems or opportunities for enhancement (Environment Agency, 1999). The Lower Mersey LEAP area includes Liverpool, Widnes, South Warrington, Runcorn, Ellesmere Port, a large area of the Wirral and part of Cheshire.

Liverpool

Chester

Birkenhead

Ellesmere Port

Southport

Preston Burnley

Warrington

Wigan

Runcorn

SalfordStockport

Bury

Blackburn

Rochdale

Oldham

Macclesfield

Crewe

Northwich

0 30km

The Mersey Estuary Zone

Irish Sea

150


representing the agreed policies and action programme of a range of agencies in

addition to the Environment Agency (Environment Agency, 1997).

The Strategy has a Steering Group as a facilitating body of the partnership. The

Steering Group operates on a collaborative basis. The personnel of the Group are

variable mainly due to the career progression of its members. The Group has tried to

keep the size of 12-15 representatives from diverse sectors. At the time of writing, the

Steering Group Members are:

Local Authorities: Cheshire County Council, Wirral Metropolitan Borough

Council, Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council and Halton Borough Council.

Private Sector: North West Water Ltd., Littlewoods Organisation plc, Peel

Holdings.

Voluntary Sector: Royal Yachting Association and Mersey Basin Campaign.

Statutory Organisations: Environment Agency and English Nature.

Technical Advisor: University of Liverpool. (Mersey Strategy, 2000b: p66)

Inspired by the structure of the MEMP, the Mersey Strategy has reformed its

organisational structure by establishing four Topic (or User) Groups; Economic

Development, Estuary Resources, Recreation, and Understanding and Monitoring

Topic Groups (Figure 7.2). The Topic Groups have strengthened the ability for the

Strategy to manage wider involvement from more diverse interest groups and

generated the focused commitment to a particular area of interest within the range of

estuary issues. The Steering Group and other Topic Groups meet every 2-3 months

and the meeting duration is generally 2-3 hours.

Figure 7.0.27 The Organisational Structure of the Mersey Strategy

Source: Modified from University of Liverpool Study Team (1995)

151


The need of a co-ordinated management plan for the Estuary has been promoted since

a proposal for a Mersey Barrage in the late 1980s. At the same time, the Albert Dock

development, which was a major waterfront project on the Liverpool-side Estuary,

had accelerated the production of an integrated estuary management plan. Stuart

Roberts, Cheshire County Council, who chaired the Steering Group from 1992

onwards, described that:

“Probably the Albert Dock is the first development in that area, and

probably the first place that actually happened. Back in the early

1990s, we could see there would be other interests on the other sites in

the Estuary. We were conscious that those new development and new

recreational uses needed to be carefully planned and managed in

themselves, also to avoid upsetting and causing conflicts with some of

existing uses like commercial navigation and nature conservation.”

The Mersey Estuary Management Plan took 3 years to develop based on 15 detailed

topic reports and was officially launched by the Minister for Merseyside in February

1996 (Table 7.1).

152


Table 7.0.18 Mersey Estuary Management Plan, Work Programme 1992-1995

March 1992 March 1993 March 1994 March 1995

Conference First Report Draft Plan Final Plan

Public Sector Partners Report to Committee Report to Committee Approval of Plan

Private & Vol. Sector Consultation Consultation

University Study Team Definition of Study Area

Voluntary/Private Sector

Consultation

Statutory Agency Review

Land Ownership and Tenure

Navigation, Tidal Regime

Nature Conservation and Pollution

Recreation

Review of Experience Elsewhere

Prepare Proposals

Identify Opportunities

Identify Zones

Advise on Mechanisms

Waste Water Treatment

Tourism

Emergency Planning

Coast and Flood Defence

Area Issue Reports

Implementation

Monitoring

Revise Plan

Public

Conference 1 Conference 2 Conference 3 Conference 4

153


Source: Modified from (University of Liverpool Study Team, 1995)

154


A considerable amount of consultation took place during the formulation of the plan.

Additionally, a series of annual conferences also organised. Subsequently, these were

translated into the Mersey Estuary Forum later on. The MEMP was intended:

to focus attention on the Estuary as one of the Mersey region’s most important

environmental assets and convey a positive image of the area as a unique

conurbation with an enormous water resource (with recreational and tourist

potential) at its core;

to provide the basis for an agreed and coordinated programme of environmental

action and creative conservation to be implemented by the commissioning

partners and others;

to set out proposals for the management of river-based recreation and for the

protection of ecological assets;

to establish part of the technical basis to enable the local authorities and others to

respond to major development initiatives on the Estuary; and

to enable the commissioning partners to speak with an informed and authoritative

voice on matters affecting the Estuary. (University of Liverpool Study Team,

1995: pp 9-10)

John Entwistle, representative of Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council, has reported

that:

“It [MEMP] is a tool for us to use the actual management plan itself

policies, guides and principles, which we can use in everyday work. …

The hope is … everybody’s singing from same song sheet.”

In 1997, one of the Steering Group members, Mike Knowles, undertook an internal

consultant study on an evaluation of the MEMP and its implementation. The Mike

Knowles’ Study is based on comprehensive interviews and discussions with more

than 34 interviewees within 29 partner organisations of the Mersey Strategy.

However, there was criticism that this internal consultant study was undertaken only

12 months after the MEMP published, which was not sufficient time to establish the

scope of the Plan effectively in the practice of planning. Nonetheless, his study,

‘Towards an Action Plan (Knowles, 1997)’, concluded the following key issues:

The MEMP has had a negligible impact on the planning activities on the Mersey.

155


The MEMP has a limited status within most organisations.

Only interested individuals have an awareness of the MEMP.

There are no structures to retain and broaden the engagement of consulted

organisations.

The benefits and relevance of the MEMP, to many, are minimal.

There is an importance that the MEMP should be creating actions related to the

Estuary.

The resourcing of the MEMP requires tangible outputs.

There is little effective focus and communication about the MEMP.

The MEMP process has not been facilitated. (Knowles, 1997: p6)

A driving force of the production of the MEAP was the involvement of the

Environment Agency in a process of co-ordinating the MEMP and a LEAP covering

the Estuary area, Lower Mersey LEAP. In order to implement the MEMP and Lower

Mersey LEAP together, the Agency felt that there is a need of taking actions out of

the MEMP. With input from the Agency, the Mersey Strategy has produced the

Mersey Estuary Action Programmes that are to take forward the policies of the

MEMP into a programme of agreed actions to address specific issues in the Estuary

(Table 7.2). The Management Plan is meant to be a visionary policy document, which

co-ordinated and produced by the specialists of the university. The Action Programme

is meant to take stock of current and future initiatives, identify gaps in coverage or

topic areas, and seek ways in which to fill these gaps. Although two Plans have been

produced in a basis of comprehensive consensus building, another difference between

two is the production process. University consultants produced the Management Plan,

and the Steering Group acted as an advisory and consultation group. The Action

Programmes are collective documents of consensuses that have been built from four

Topic Groups of the Mersey Strategy, about 50 member partners who are actual

players of the area. These two different methodologies were not deliberately intended,

however, most interviewees agreed that they needed different approaches in different

situations and purposes.

Table 7.0.19 A Comparison Between the MEMP and the MEAP

ME Management Plan ME Action Programmes

156


Purpose Policy Framework Identifying and prioritising issues

Life Long-term (5 years) Short-term (1 year)

Provider University Consultant Topic Groups of the Partnership

Source: Author

The MEMP and MEAP are developed as advisory plans that do not have any statutory

powers or legal responsibilities on the Estuary issues. These plans are unique as an

advisory plan that it has been agreed to fulfil the role of a LEAP for the Mersey

Estuary. The Lower Mersey LEAP states:

“The estuary sits in the middle of this [Lower Mersey] LEAP area and

many of the issues raised within this LEAP have an impact on the

Estuary. At first it was thought that this LEAP would include the

Estuary. However, after some consideration we decided to take the

Estuary out of this LEAP area. We hope to work with the Estuary

Project Group to move the MEMP on to an issues and action stage.”

(Environment Agency, 1997: p62)

The process of putting together the three plans, MEMP, MEAP and LEAP, has also

mirrored the Lower Mersey LEAP to add much diverse issues such as social issues,

although these are beyond the work field of the Agency. Another advantage for the

MEMP as a part of the LEAP is that regular updates of the MEMP and the continuity

of the Plan may be secured by the Agency where regulates to review the LEAPs

annually and needs a full review on a five-year cycle.

The interviewees have reported that there were two major driving forces in combining

two plans, MEMP and LEAP. Firstly, there has been active involvement of the

Environment Agency in the Campaign and, consequently, the Mersey Strategy.

Secondly, it was always the intention of the Environment Agency to secure wider

consultation in the production of the LEAPs as it is emphasised in the R&D Technical

Reports (Baker Associates, 1997; and Environment and Society Research Unit, 1998).

The MEMP provided much wider consultation than a typical process of LEAP

production. It was therefore a good opportunity for the Agency to have a positive

publicity.

The limitation presented may conclude lack of awareness and ownership on the

MEMP among partners. This might be because the MEMP is produced the University

157


consultant with limited number of member partners (about 10 members of the

Steering Group). The MEMP might facilitate awareness and ownership among only

those who are involved in the production. Generally, the interviewees agreed that the

MEMP has not been effective on translating its objective to the whole range of the

partner, although a considerable amount of consultation has been carried out.

However, this weakness of the MEMP can be covered by the MEAP that is produced

by a comprehensive consensus building with wider involvements through four Topic

Groups.

The majority of interviewees pointed out that the representatives who have been

involved in the production of the MEMP and the MEAPs can have more inclusive

impacts on the estuary activities in practice than those who have not. This is because

participants felt that the Plans are their personal achievements, and they aware of the

Plans. Nonetheless, consensus building for the strategy can also give negative

impacts. There is a danger that an advisory plan, especially in the case of the MEAP,

which is developed by consensus building process, tends to be a simple description of

what partners are already doing rather than put extra efforts to the Estuary. Setting out

that context, Stuart Roberts, representative of Cheshire County Council described:

“I think that is a fair comment. A lot of what’s in the Action

Programme is what’s happening in those organisation anyway, but

that was always deliberate intention. … Having them in one document

meant that we could look at the gaps where things ought to be

happening in line with the Management Plan objectives, but aren’t.

Then, we [the Mersey Strategy] can try to get things moving on that.”

As an example, one area identified within the Recreation Topic Group is a need to

produce a guide to recreational uses in the Estuary. There was no single body that felt

that is their responsibility to produce the guide. The Strategy consequently took over

the recreational guide project, and published ‘Making The Most Of The Mersey: A

Leisure Guide to Your Estuary (Mersey Strategy, 2000a)’ in 2000. A lesson can be

learnt from this incident is that there is the need to realise the limitations of advisory

plans and to maximise the implementation of the plans from those limitation.

There is no doubt that the MEMP provided a comprehensive policy framework for

integrated estuary management. The Management Plan intended that development

158


proposals could be assessed so that the activities around the Estuary can be

coordinated. Although the MEMP and MAMP have been strongly referred to in the

Lower Mersey LEAP, not surprisingly, the meaning of the MEMP and MEAP to the

actual users in practice was a ‘subsidisation tool’ to facilitate the actions rather than

control them. Interviewees reported that the uses of the management plans are mainly

to facilitate the action when a certain project, which has been addressed by the plans,

is promoted.

The management plans is also used as an ‘information source’. Kevin Curran,

Liverpool City Council, reported that the MEMP was a very useful document in

understanding the Estuary issues when he started a new position in relation to the

Estuary. While the Council has a limited amount of information on the Estuary, the

plan provides a considerable amount of information or referred where the information

he is looking for can be found. At an organisational level, the management plans is a

‘publicity tool’ that indicates a wider consultation has been proceed, as the

Environment Agency may be an example. Additionally, there is a concern that the

MEMP and MEAP can be a good reference for applying the Single Regeneration

Budget that partnership approaches can be prioritised.

By realising the limitations and enhanced uses of the advisory plans, the rest of this

case study investigates what are the working practices to maximise the

implementation of the MEMP and the MEAP. The first part examines the issues of

the institutional arrangement and the participation of representatives in the Mersey

Strategy. Secondly, it investigates how the services of the Strategy can be delivered

through the network that is a dominant mode of governance in a consensus building

process.

DELIVERING SERVICES: CONSENSUS BUILDING

Like other part of the Basin, the Mersey Estuary is faced with a range of

administrative, political, economic and environmental issues (Figure 7.3). The Mersey

Strategy developed a much broader vision based on the concept of sustainability in

order to respond to the scope and complexity of these issues in relation to the Estuary.

Although this enables a win-win strategy by covering wider issues together in

159


economic, social, and environmental decision-making, sustainability was not the sole

reason for them to put extra time, effort and money into the partnership.

Figure 7.0.28 Diverse Areas of Interest in the Mersey Estuary

To come later.

Source: Author

Note: These photographs show a range of interest in recreational and navigational

purposes.

The Mersey Strategy has a set of hooks to attract stakeholders of the estuary issues. In

general, interviewees indicated that the government-sponsored credibility of the

Mersey Basin Campaign has been seen as an attractive benefit for stakeholders to

become partners of the Mersey Strategy. For example, the regulatory agencies, such

as the Environment Agency, saw an opportunity for wider consultation by being a part

of the Mersey Strategy. It can be seen in the production of the Lower Mersey LEAP

using wider consultation process of the MEMP, as discussed. Business sectors, such

as Littlewoods Organisation plc, saw the potential for promoting a positive image of

the company and better public relations by working within the sustainability vision.

Besides these, some interviewees mentioned that the Mersey Barrage project, which

was being actively promoted in the 1980s, provided a stimulus to networking, which

may have facilitated the creation of partnerships.

The Estuary Zone contains as many as nine local authorities and some forty

organisations have regulatory responsibilities for the Estuary. The Estuary Project

Group comprised most of these organisations together with representatives of the

private and voluntary sectors, a membership of almost fifty. It was a matter of concern

for the Mersey Strategy to create a much smaller Steering Group; a committee with 20

or fewer is a desirable size for it to be effective (Heathcote, 1998). Additionally, the

160


Strategy had to find a way of managing the Steering Group to be in a manner

consistent with the principles for collaborative planning: the working committee

should include representatives of all relevant and significant interests (Innes and

Booher, 1999b); and participants should represent points of view and interests, not

merely large organisations with the most wide-ranging powers (Straus, 1999a).

The Steering Group seems to be well in line with consensus building principles in

terms of the structure of the group. Most interviewees reported that they were satisfied

with the size and diversity of the Steering Group. By recognising importance of the

size of the Group as a ‘working group’ rather than a ‘committee’, the Strategy has

carefully selected the representatives. In this context, representatives on the Steering

Group pointed out:

“ In term of the size, we probably got it right. It’s not too big, it’s not

too small … It’s about 14-15 officially, but regularly it’s usually about

10 or dozen people … So, it should be very selective.” (John Entwistle)

“This is a good steering group. It’s a good diversity. …. We have the

structure of four local authorities, two statutory bodies, two voluntary

sectors and two private sectors. We try to have that structure all the

time.” (William Crookshank)

“Individuals [representatives] were carefully chosen and it was not

just self-provided. We looked not only a range of the organisations but

also their personal interests and knowledge of the estuary as well. So it

was people who in various ways were already involved in the estuary.”

(Stuart Roberts)

There was a wide acknowledgement that wider involvements would provide good

credibility for the partnership. It was therefore a matter of concern that the Mersey

Docks and Harbour Company, as a big user of the Estuary, has not been actively

involved in the partnership. In order to get reluctant stakeholders involved in the

Strategy, the regional credibility of the Mersey Basin Campaign has been promoted as

a significant aspect. This is because the organisations that are taking part of the

Campaign tend to keen at involving other activities in relation to the aims and

objectives of the Campaign. For example, Littlewoods plc who is a partner of the

Campaign is also represented on the board of the Mersey Strategy, although they are

161


not an organisation that has direct involvement in the Estuary or has legal

responsibilities on the Estuary.

From the interviews undertaken, the Mersey Strategy might take three possible

approaches to get reluctant stakeholders involved. First, for the public sector,

establishing inclusive information on the whole Estuary may attract the administrative

bodies to get actively involved. The ability of cooperating partners is important to

establish this integrated information source. Secondly, for the business sector, the

Strategy needs effective marketing as a mutual partnership, which endeavours to

achieve a win-win strategy. There is a need to emphasise that the Strategy is not just

an environmental and ecological green group or an organisation that takes a view of

contentious project. Finally, using ‘big names’ of existing partners might lead to

positive reactions from smaller interest groups as Stuart Roberts reported:

“We deliberately use some big name such as Littlewoods to give

confident to other organisations, maybe smaller businesses to get

involved, and to demonstrate our credibility. When we had a launch of

the very first Action Programme for the business sector, we had the

chairman of Littlewoods as a main speaker. We deliberately splashed

the name around as an attraction to get interest from other

businesses.”

For more comprehensive involvement, the Mersey Strategy uses the Mersey Estuary

Forum, which is an annual conference. This provides a valuable opportunity to

translate direct messages to a wider range of stakeholders, and keep partners

interested in the partnership, as RTPI (1998) suggests. A representative from a local

authority described on the Mersey Estuary Forum that:

“From a local authority’s point of view, it is an opportunity for us to

invite politicians to go along to see what the authority officers are

doing on their behalf in terms of keeping the process is going. Political

accountability is quite important, especially when local authority is

putting the money in.”

Another way to encourage wider participation from general public, the Strategy

considered organising Friends of the Mersey Estuary. Although continuous

involvements from wider stakeholders have been emphasised in this context, the

162


interviewees are also conscious on the ability of the Steering Group as a working

group. William Crookshank stressed that:

“In the Steering Group, you can have as many big players as you like.

But, what you really need are active members. If the representatives

from those big players are not active members who are just looking at

what is going on, the benefits to the Steering Group might not be there.

… Nothing is going to be happened if you haven’t got people taking

things forward. … If you haven’t got a Steering Group that can steer, it

couldn’t go anywhere.”

This argument suggests a need of further investigation on the working manner of the

Steering Group, especially, focused on roles of active members at the Steering Group

and the factors contribute to being an active member or a less active member.

A service delivery mechanism of collaborative partnerships, which tend to be based

on a network mode of governance (Kim, 1999) may be different from other economic

regeneration partnerships. This is because the actions from partner organisations

cannot be directly motivated through a network-oriented approach that depends on

roles of individual representatives rather than their own organisations. The interviews

undertaken by the author show that most representatives on the Steering Group have

not changed their own organisational points of view on the Estuary while working

within the Mersey Strategy. However, they gained a better understanding of the

Estuary issues, and came to recognise the need for a wider perspective on the Estuary

than could be achieved by individual partners ploughing a lone furrow. Nevertheless,

most interviewees had found that the motivation for working actively in the Steering

Group is dependant on the enthusiasm of individuals rather than the concerns of their

own organisations.

The research shows that having shared ownership of the partnership among those

representatives is fundamental for effective partnership service delivery. William

Crookshank, a representative of the Environment Agency, commented that:

“Initially, I was representing the Agency … to make sure the Action

Programme is produced. … I am now, at the Steering Group meeting,

representing the Steering Group and the [Mersey] Strategy more than

the Agency. … I have a problem when I talk about ‘we’. I sometimes

163


think, am I talking about ‘we’ as the Agency or ‘we’ as the Mersey

Strategy?”

Throughout the interviews, it is clear that the more active representatives, in the view

of their colleagues, have similar feelings. Additionally, it has been identified that once

the representatives have ownership of the partnership, they act as a catalyst to

stimulate and motivate action by partner organisations. This is because: 1) they are

more likely to have a strong feedback process to their parent organisations; 2) they are

generally prepared to seek resources for the Mersey Strategy from their parent

organisation; and 3) they tend to make their colleagues aware of the Mersey Strategy

throughout internal networks within their parent organisations. The research indicates

that these three actions of representatives are essential to make the partner

organisations aware of the importance of the Mersey Strategy, and consequently,

encourages them to work for the Strategy’s aims. In a long term, active members who

feel ownership to the Strategy continue marketing the Strategy even after he or she

moved out from the Steering Group. If so, there is another question to be asked. How

can the ownership of the partnership be developed among the representatives?

There is no simple answer. However, it may be easier to answer the question as to

what distinguishes active members from less active members in the Steering Group.

In describing differences between active members and less active members, some

interviewees commented that:

“It could be, I think maybe that one or two people I can think of who

contributed less are there [Steering Group] to represent a particular

organisation’s interests [rather than to represent their sectors] and

make sure to secure those.” (Stuart Roberts)

“It’s fair to say that some organisations intend to protect their own

interests rather than necessarily be a sort of proactive partner. So they

just observe what everyone else is doing and make sure that other

people’s actions aren’t going to impact on them.” (Louise Hopkins)

It is clear that most of the active member representatives perceive much wider

potential for the partnership. Active representatives have pointed out that the potential

outcomes are the product of written agreements, public awareness, mutual

understanding on the Estuary, a learning process, changing attitudes and viewpoints

164


of working within partnerships and the ability to prevent future conflicts on Estuary

issues. On the other hand, less active members described the purpose of the Strategy

as simply enabling issues concerned with the Estuary to be raised. They also

prioritised their roles on the Group as representing their own organisational interests.

Marsh (1998) argues that communication exchange (interaction and information

sharing) in a working group affects the outcomes of the network-oriented approach,

by offering a unique opportunity for partners to gain a better understanding of each

other’s interests and improving partner relationships. Regarding communications on

the Steering Group, Stuart Roberts reported:

“[In the Steering Group meetings] maybe the discussion is not

confidential, but sometimes things would be said not to repeat it

outside. Individuals are representatives of our sectors rather than our

organisations. When I (or other people) express the view that wouldn’t

necessary be the view of my own authority, the organisation that

employs me. The view I express will be one that I feel to be the best

interests for the Estuary.”

The interviews indicate ownership of the partnership may be stimulated when the

representatives are made aware of wider visions of the Estuary developed through

communication exchanges. Vice versa, ownership of partnership also stimulates

active communication exchanges. The interviewees have found that the level of

involvement may affect to the level of information that representatives brought into

the Steering Group.

The feeling of achievement and awareness on outcomes has been also identified as

another aspect that encourages member representatives to be actively involved.

William Crookshank, one of active members of the Steering Group, reported that:

“It [the Mersey Strategy] is a sort of in my blood, you know. It’s my

personal achievement. I could see that things we proposed have been

achieved, so I was quite happy to put a lot of my personal effort into

the Mersey Strategy. … It was a kind of snowball effect.”

This issue has been confirmed by Stuart Roberts. Speaking of his experience of the

Economic Development Topic Group, Stuart Robert carefully mentioned that:

165


“I was in the Economic Development [Topic] Group which one of the

least successful among the four. … One of the keys to the success of the

topic group is people [in the group] who feel that they are working to

achieve something that wouldn’t otherwise happen, so that they can

come and contribute. … I think it is what we didn’t have at the

Economic Development Topic Group. … People couldn’t really see the

benefit for them to come along to the meetings and really get

involved.”

It is now clear that tangible outcomes of the Group may act as a catalyst to stimulate

and motivate individual members to get actively involved so that they can feel the

ownership on the Strategy after being involved a while. There is also a growing

awareness that, without tangible outputs, individual representatives may not be able to

weigh their commitment to the Strategy in balance with the work required by their

employing organisations (Knowles, 1997).

Discussing outcome of the consensus building, many interviewees identified that their

personal or professional networks, which developed through the activities of the

Strategy, were also important. They all agreed that a comprehensive networking has

been developed within the Steering Group and from the other meetings and

conferences they attended in relation to the Strategy. The interviewees reported

networks were useful in streamlining such communication by encouraging

information sharing (Powell, 1991) while not only they were on the Group but also

even after they left the Strategy. However, one interviewee reported that newcomers

have found difficulties in breaking into the close-knit relationships among active

members in the Steering Group.

7.2.2 The Campaign Council and Manifesto Pledge Groups

This case study refers to a consensus building process in developing strategies for the

facilitating body of the partnerships. It engages an institutional arrangement enabling

member partners to participate in shaping strategies and tasks for the partnership in

operation. From the structure of the Mersey Basin Campaign, the Campaign Council

and Manifesto Pledge Groups have been recognised as steering structures of the

Campaign Centre through the partner’s consensus building process. For this case

166


study, interviews with six council members and three co-ordinators of pledge groups

have been undertaken. To obtain understanding of the case study, two Campaign

Council meetings and a pledge group meeting have been observed (Appendix 1).

Additionally, meeting minutes of earlier Council meetings and individual Pledge

Group meetings have been examined.

BACKGROUND TO THE CAMPAIGN COUNCIL AND THE MANIFESTO

PLEDGE GROUPS

The Campaign Council has been established by the new chairperson of the Campaign

demanding a simpler structure that can create better communication between key

organisations within the Campaign. The Council has been established by merging four

committees of the Campaign: Campaign Development Group; Mersey Basin Business

Foundation Board of Directors; Mersey Basin Campaign Administration Board of

Directors; and Mersey Basin Campaign Board. The Council aims to provide strategic

overview for the Campaign and help building links with major regional organisations.

The Council involves representatives of:

10 public sector members (Government Office for the North West, North West

Regional Development Agency, Environment Agency, Countryside Agency,

English Nature, Regional Assembly, Lancashire County Council, Cheshire

County Council, Tameside MBC and Salford City Council);

22 private sector members (United Utilities, British Waterways, Manchester Ship

Canal, ICI, ICL, Shell UK, British Gas Transco, Littlewoods, Associated Octel,

Alfred McAlpine, Manweb, Scottish Power, Royal Bank of Scotland, National

Westminster Bank, Manchester Airport, Vauxhall Motors, Bechtel Water

Technology, Arkady Craigmillar, Brunner Mond, Addleshaw Booth, AEA

Technology and Deloitte & Touche); and

8 non governmental organisations (Mersey Basin Trust, Water Watch,

Sustainability North West, Groundwork Trust, Tidy Britain Group, Lancashire

Wildlife Trust, Cheshire Landscape Trust and University of Liverpool) (Mersey

Basin Campaign, 2000b)

As a part of restructuring of the Campaign, the Manifesto Pledge Groups has been set

up as task groups for the 8 manifesto pledges (Table 7.3) that are launched in 1999.

167


There are six pledge groups: Regional Pledge Group (Pledge 1); Partnership Pledge

Group (Pledges 2 and 3); Water Quality Pledge Group (Pledge 4); Education Pledge

Group (Pledges 5 and 8); Natural Environment Pledge Group (Pledge 6); and River

Valley Initiatives Pledge Group (Pledge 7). The role of pledge groups is to turn these

pledges into feasible actions by keeping the pledges high on the regional agenda.

Pledge Groups were formed to provide linkages between the Campaign Centre and

the partnership about the pledges. Their role is to: 1) advise the Campaign Chair and

Chief Executive on practical ways to deliver the pledges; 2) help turn the theory of the

pledges into action; 3) bring forward new ideas; and 4) monitor progress, keeping the

pledges relevant and effective.

Table 5.0.20 Pledge Groups of the Campaign

No Pledge Detail

1 Commit the Campaign to the Region's future

Three core objectives of water quality, waterside development and care and concern for the environment will be our contribution to the Regional Strategy; our commitment to the sustainability of the Region's environment for future generations. The Campaign is not a stand-alone initiative but is part of the way forward for the Northwest.

2 Seek specific commitments from our partners.

The Campaign forms an agreement that will secure and monitor their commitment to waterways and waterway projects. The group encourages commitment specifically expressed in their business and development plans.

3 Strengthen the whole partnership of the Campaign

The Campaign tries to involve more schools, more communities and more businesses in our work.

4Continue the drive to improve water quality in our river and streams

A great deal has been achieved but the pressure to secure the investment that will complete the task has to be maintained.

5

Promote the recognition of the value and potential of our watercourses and waterfront environments

For too long the region has turned its back on the rivers.

6 Recognise the value of the natural environment

The Mersey Estuary is designated as a European Special Protection Area and a RAMSAR wetland site. The Campaign is keen to encourage initiatives that will enhance conditions for the basin's wildlife and that will encourage people to respect their wildlife heritage.

7 Continues our support for River Valley Initiatives

These are one of the Campaign's major success stories, helping to identify and work with local communities and encouraging them to take action.

8 Education and young people

The Campaign believes that by influencing the attitudes and future behaviour of young people the group will lay the foundations for a positive outlook on our watercourses stretching into the future. Education is not simply about providing an understanding of the physical aspects of a river basin but also developing attitudes and culture which will help secure the interest and active involvement of young people in the Campaign's cause.

168


Source: Adapted from Mersey Basin Campaign (2001b)

Bearing in mind that the Council and Pledge Groups are still at the early stage of its

development, there was a consideration among interviewees that the roles of two

meetings are not firmly defined yet. However, in this research, the Pledge Groups

have been seen as a sub-structure of the Council considering that the agenda and

members of the Council have been sub-divided into each pledge group. Although the

Council and Pledge Groups stress a collaborative approach in their objectives, there is

an arguable view that the meetings have failed to meet the principles of consensus

building.

DELIVERING SERVICES: CONSENSUS BUILDING

Mark Turner, representative of the Campaign Centre to the Council, reported that:

“the Council has got a membership of 40 or 50 people who are senior

people within major organisations. It is to give representatives a feel of

what is happening in the Campaign. … The Council is there to manage

the Campaign and ensures that the Campaign delivers what is on the

Corporate Plan. … It’s there as a sort of forum really. It’s not

designed for a working group.”

He raised three important points: 1) the size of the Council is too big to manage and

achieve effective consensus building; 2) the Council provides a unique and potential

environment for consensus building with senior level representation among key

regional players; and 3) consensus building may be not an essential role of the

Council.

The Council has been structured by combining the networking and advisory role of

four committees. The size of the Council is consequently immense. Most interviewees

described the size of the meeting is ‘too big’. There are 40 member organisations on

the Council, and the number of meeting attendants can be up to 60 people in full-

attendance. However, three Council meetings that had been held during the case study

period indicate that there were less than 40 percent of attendances32. From the

32 There have been three Council meetings since the first meeting on 10th January 1999. There were about 15 attendees among officially listed 40 members at each meeting (excluding 7-8 of the Campaign Centre staff).

169


interviews undertaken and meetings observed, there are possible explanations on

lower attendance rate.

Firstly, there is a lack of motivation for the partners to participate in the Council

meetings. The meeting is more likely to be rather ‘information giving’ and ‘rubber-

stamping’ administration process than interactive decision-making. As one business

representative reported that:

“the primary reason for coming along to the Council is to ensure the

money we put in is spent on as we intended.”

Another interviewee said:

“I am not sure why I have to come to the Council meetings.”

Additionally, the Council encompasses regional overview that cannot be simulated to

day-to-day practice for locally based partners, especially for local authorities. This

point can be forwarded to the second aspect, absent of local authorities. Only one

local authority has been attended at the Council regularly although there are four local

authorities on the list. This is because the local authorities have no regional remit, and

the Council’s strategic overview at regional level may be off of their agenda. Thirdly,

the immense size of meeting may give an impression that there are many ‘other

people’ who can participate, so may take pressure off from individual members

attending at the meeting.

Referring to the Mark Turner’s second point, the Council possesses enormous

potential to deliver comprehensive consensus building at the regional level. The

Council involves a wider range of representation from public and private sectors

together with non-governmental organisations and voluntary groups. Moreover, the

Council involves a high seniority of representation; executive members of the Council

made up of positional leaders, or senior bureaucrats of partner organisations. This

enables administrative simplicity for the Council meetings, because they are actual

decision makers of their parent organisations. It is a rare event in the region to bring

those key regional players in a same space and in a regular basis. However, besides

the size and attendance rate, the Council might fail to meet the principles of consensus

building. In essence, this relates to the concepts of democratic decision-making,

including sharing information, building of trust and credibility, relationships between

170


the public and the decision makers, and conformance with pre-existing requirements

such as laws and funding availability (Heathcote, 1998).

Speaking from Author’s meeting observation and examination of the Council meeting

minutes, the Council meetings are not designed to stimulate a comprehensive

discussion and interaction among those who are sitting at the table. Most of time at

the Council has been spent on reporting Campaign’s activities since last meeting. One

of representatives of the Campaign Centre reported that the Campaign chairperson

and chief executive of the Campaign are only persons among about 7 representatives

from the Campaign Centre who can speak up at the discussion. This may be because

the Campaign Centre is prudent in manipulating the key partners, especially who are

at the Council, so as not to upset them as they are major funding sources for the

Campaign. This leads to the third point of the Mark Turner’s quotation.

The Campaign Council may not aim to achieve comprehensive consensus building.

Instead, the Campaign uses the Council as a forum to allow member partners to meet

in a regular basis, allowing them to share their experiences. It also shows partners

what is happening across the region and enables many to put their own project into

the context of the Campaign as a whole. As the Campaign Centre takes cautions not to

disconcert the Council members in the meetings, the actual consensus building has

been preceded outside of the Council through consultation process by organising one-

to-one individual meetings with key partners. Although it is not the real form of

consensus building, this enables the Campaign Centre to build more close and

personal contacts with its key partners. Additionally, these individual meetings

resolve conflicts before they become serious in the Council meetings. Peter Batey, a

representative of the University of Liverpool to the Council, reported:

“I’ve done some breakfast meetings with the Campaign chairman to

discuss about current issues of the Campaign and its future. …

Sometimes, when the Campaign faced a sensitive issue, he [the

chairman] asked me to speak up at a certain point in the next Council

meeting to give him support.”

The Council builds consensus through a consultation process by approaching

individual partners informally apart from formal procedure. Because it is not a ‘true’

consensus building process, it cannot generate ‘true’ outcomes of consensus building.

171


Generally speaking, the Council could not create the commitment and ownership from

individual members, although the experience of the Mersey Strategy has shown that

the ownership in consensus building process is a significant aspect for effective

service delivery. Therefore, the information flow at the meetings has been restricted,

and individual members were only representing particular organisation’s interests so

as to protect their own interests.

Some of six Pledge Groups are arguably better than the Council in involving

stakeholders and working with those who participated. The size of meeting is much

more manageable as the group is made of 7 to10 member. More focused agenda of

Pledge Groups enabled to attract a variety of interest groups including area-based

groups and voluntary sectors, although the agenda weights still on regional strategic

overview. However, the Pledge Groups have also suffered from low attendance rate at

the meeting. Mark Turner, member of Supporting RVIs Pledge Group, explained:

“Pledge Groups have been seen initially to meet once or twice of the

year, very infrequently, just to take an overview what’s happening.

What has happened is that Pledge Groups met more often than that.

Perhaps, that is overloaded people’s diary little bit. If the Pledge

Group meetings go back to once every six months, that would be more

appropriate than being once every quarter.”

Although six Pledge Groups made of member organisations of the Campaign Council,

the representatives participating in the Pledge Groups are not always same people

who are representatives to the Council. This is mainly because attending two different

meetings is very time consuming, especially, for senior bureaucrats of partner

organisations. A couple of interviewees reported that absent of senior level

representation at the Pledge Groups may cause a problem in managing the meetings

effectively. Setting out this context, Caroline Downey, member of Education Pledge

Group, explained:

“I think people on those pledge groups are, as you say, wrong level. …

They can’t decide. They can’t input in. They have to go back to their

organisations and find somebody else. … I’ve got 10 people who are

coming together and who are looking at education and awareness.

Three of those happen to be funders of our [the Campaign’s]

172


educational programme. … Now, the person who sits on the education

[pledge group] from North West Water is not the person who decides

on our funding. [She stressed same situations with representatives

from the Environment Agency and Shell] … So I have to then go again

to those funders. So, I have spent time on the education pledge group

and I have spent additional time on chasing funders, you know those

key people.”

In distinguishing active groups from less active groups, the research shows that more

active pledge groups have mutual interests and commitment on particular projects

rather than general overview33. For example, Natural Environment Pledge Group have

been identified as an active group by interviewees, and the group produced more

practical outcomes organising projects such as fish and biodiversity surveys, a

training day and a conference. On the other hand, outcomes from less active groups

such as Partnership and Supporting RVIs Pledge Groups were rather limited on

strategic overviews that could not generate concentrated inputs from participants.

In order to deliver more effective consensus building in the Council and Pledge

Groups, it may be advisable to organise a combined structure of the two; the Pledge

Groups may be considered as sub-topic groups of the Council. This may encourage

participants’ motivation by creating more interactive discussion environment in the

meeting in terms of: providing a manageable size of meetings and facilitating feelings

of achievement among participant by contributing to focused issues. This combined

meeting may reduce the number of meetings and consequently save time of the

Campaign Centre staff and perhaps of the representatives.

33 The same result has been seen from the experience of the Mersey Strategy at the previous section.

173


7.2.3 Summary of Consensus Building Process

Like other forms of partnership, a collaborative partnership delivers its services

through partner organisations. The two case studies showed that the size of meeting

and the right level of representation are essential for effective consensus building. The

case studies also identified that the actions by partner organisations in a collaborative

partnership need to be motivated by individual representatives who are actively

involved in the partnership. Consequently, the shared ownership of the partnership

among the representatives, which may be stimulated by communication exchange in a

working committee, has been seen to be a fundamental factor contributing to effective

implementation of collaborative partnerships. However, as Straus (1999b) argues,

partially met consensus building principles may: 1) decrease participants’ motivation

to commit themselves to a consensus-based process; 2) waste valuable and limited

resources including time and money; and 3) damage the credibility of project sponsors

and facilitating body.

It is certain that commitment and motivation among those who participate in the

working committees can be accelerated when there are activities or projects that

participants can contribute. These feelings of achievement among participants may

lead to active involvement, and consequently, encourage sense ownership in a

working group. In addition, as better meeting management can encourage better

communication exchange in a committee, the facilitating skills of the co-ordinator or

the chair are of paramount importance. Practical skills for better meeting management

can enhance positive outcomes of consensus building.

7.3 Facilitation in Practice

This section investigates how a collaborative partnership facilitates actions from

partners to deliver integrated waterside revitalisation. For facilitation process

throughout developing strategies, the Water Mark Scheme has been explored. This

awarding scheme is to facilitate waterside businesses to improve their waterside

environment voluntarily. It is a newly introduced scheme, and is waiting for launching

an official programme after the pilot scheme completed. The Showrick’s Bridge

Project case study shows a process of facilitation in a practical project where

bureaucratic planning practice caused conflicts in implementation process. This

174


project is recognised as a good example of facilitation in action that would not have

been implemented without the effort of the Alt 2000 RVI as a facilitator.

7.3.1 The Water Mark Scheme

The Water Mark case study addresses a process in facilitating waterside businesses to

practice sustainable waste management. For this case study, two individual interviews

and a group interview with four members of Working Group for the pilot scheme

have undertaken. Additionally, a Water Mark Progress Meeting has been observed

and a site visit to a company awarded the Water Mark has been carried out (Appendix

1).

BACKGROUND TO THE WATER MARK SCHEME

The Water Mark is an award scheme for waterside businesses to tackle waste in their

local rivers and canals and to provide an incentive for waterside companies to do

more than the standard legal requirement. Considering there is no single legislation on

solid waste, the initial idea of the scheme involved looking at a solution to prevent

businesses tipping or allowing solid wastes to get down the banks of rivers and canals

into the watercourses. Water Watch originally had an idea to develop a ‘Business

Charter’, which was more like a pledge that businesses could sign up agreeing to

prevent solid waste getting into rivers and canals. From these ideas, a pilot ‘Water

Mark’ scheme has been launched by the Mersey Basin Campaign’s Darwen and

REEL River Valley Initiatives, with help from Water Watch, the Environment

Agency, nine local authorities and Groundwork Business Environment Association

(Mersey Basin Campaign, 1999). During the pilot scheme period, between February

and November 1999, nine businesses in the Darwen and REEL RVI areas of

Lancashire signed up to get involved, and four businesses have received awards at the

time of writing34 (Figure 7.4). Following the positive results of the pilot scheme, it

may be expanded over the whole of the Mersey Basin area.

Figure 7.0.29 An Example of the Water Mark Scheme

To come later34 Signed nine businesses are Akzo Nobel, B&Q Blackburn, B&Q Brierfield, Darwen WwTW, Hyndburn WwTW, Graham & Brown, Phillips Components, St. Regis, and Potterton Myson.

175


Source: Mersey Basin Campaign (2001a: p5)

Note: The photograph shows an area of a business, Graham and Brown, Blackburn,

which was awarded the Water Mark during the pilot scheme.

The Water Mark scheme encourages businesses to minimise their impact on the water

quality and make sustainable improvements on the waterside environment over and

above the regulatory requirements. Participants receive an information pack giving

guidelines on waste management and a checklist to assess their waste management

practices. To be eligible for the award companies must satisfy the scheme’s waste

management criteria and provide a plan to improve their local waterside, for example,

involving river clean-ups, landscaping or other amenity projects. To achieve an

award, a waterside business must first undergo a site audit to check compliance with

legislation such as the Duty of Care (E.P.A. s. 34) and the Water Resources Act 1991

(s. 85). Compliance is a condition of proceeding to award level. The award certificate

is given when the business has produced an improvement plan for their waterside site

and they have demonstrated a commitment to carrying it out and have begun

implementation. The certificate is valid for a year and renewal is based on continued

compliance with legislation, their having completed the planned improvements and

that they have a plan for further improvements.

The detailed operational process has been illustrated in Figure 7.5. RVIs and the

Environment Agency play significant roles in implementing the Water Mark Scheme.

Following the initial contact through a RVI co-ordinator, the Environment Agency

carries out a pollution audit on the site of waterside businesses. In satisfactory of the

audit result, businesses produce an improvement action plan for their sites with

assistance from a RVI co-ordinator. On the completion of the work proposed in the

action plan, the Water Mark award is granted, and the certificate may be renewed

according to the result of annual monitoring.

There is another similar kind of award scheme, the Green Business Parks (GBP),

which is developed and implemented by the Groundwork Trust, especially targeting

business estates located within business park sites. The GBP scheme operates

alongside with the Environment Agency to improve environmental performance of

business estates and industrial estates. Unlike the Water Mark, the GBP scheme works

176


collectively targeting a group of business in a business park rather than with single

business.

Figure 7.0.30 Operational Process of the Water Mark

Source: Modified from Water Watch (2000: p17)

DELIVERING SERVICES: FACILITATION

The pilot scheme has been developed by Working Group of the Water Watch, RVIs,

the Environment Agency, local authorities, and Groundwork Business Environment

Association. The roles of the Working Group are: to develop the principles and

structure of the award scheme; to produce the required materials; to promote the

award scheme to businesses; to carry out site audits and liaise with participants; to

assess and make decisions on awarding businesses; and to monitor progress of the

scheme (Water Watch, 2000). Each member of Working Group has provided various

resources in developing and implementing the pilot scheme.

Water Watch has organised and coordinated the Working Group in developing the

pilot scheme. Development from the idea of Business Charter has been stepped up

when two RVIs identified difficulties in involving business in their activities. As the

scheme was to be categorised a RVI project, the main mechanism of delivering the

scheme is the RVIs. Therefore, the RVIs would have a considerable responsibility for

overall project implementation including contacting businesses, raising fund and

monitoring. Most interviewees emphasised the importance of the RVI’s networks and

knowledge of local areas that enable the initial contact to businesses and co-operative

actions from various partners. From this context, Judy Yacoub, CED Partnership, who

is a member of the Working Group reported:

“The real value that the RVI co-ordinators can give is, quite apart

from the technical side of it, making an initial contact with companies

to take them into it [Water Mark scheme] step by step. In order to

achieve the Water Mark Scheme, we need to get additional funding to

177


make it happen and set up the partnership to get the work achieved.

That is something that obviously wouldn’t happen without close

working with RVI co-ordinators.”

Sarah Lester, co-ordinator of Darwen RVI, has reported the strengths of the RVI’s

networking and local knowledge in implementing the scheme:

“If you know what is happening in the area and you know what the

other groups might be interested in doing some planting or whatever,

you can put the two together.”

Speaking from his experience of operating the pilot scheme with B&Q Brierfield,

Steven Beesley, Project Officer of REEL RVI, added:

“Some of the companies, especially large ones, totally finance

themselves within their own budgets. … [But] because they [B&Q]

restricted how much grant they can put in any one store, they couldn’t

finance the whole project [creating seating area on canalside]. But

that was helped by input from a local community group such as free

labouring.”

His point extends the outcomes of the scheme. The Water Mark may be not only to

involve businesses as it initially stated but also can break down the barrier between

local businesses and community groups. The Water Mark may therefore facilitate

future co-operative actions managing local watercourses in encouraging links between

waterside business and local communities.

The Environment Agency played a significant role in providing technical advice to

both Working Group and businesses, especially following the involvement of the

Environment Protection Officer who has also brought in the Agency’s ecologists to

give specialist advice. In terms of the role of the Agency, Mary Lee, Water Watch,

said:

“The Environment Agency’s input has changed over time. Initially they

got involved to advise the technical side, and then they took more

active role. Where we were originally only going to look at solid waste,

they said ‘Well, really you can’t look at solid waste without looking at

appliances, so you really need to look at the whole lot’. Because they

were willing to put their time and effort into doing this, in particular

178


their expertise, we broadened the scheme to look at the whole range of

waste issues on watercourse.”

She also reported the benefit for the Agency in getting involved in the scheme.

“… sometimes businesses are quite aware of the Environment Agency

[because they are a force body], so they worry about the Agency’s

visit. Because the Agency is coming in very friendly capacity [when

they visit the site for Water Mark scheme], it gives an opportunity for

dialogue. … They are not there to scratch. [Additionally] the

Environment Agency can prevent pollution before enforcement even

though the businesses don’t get to the award stage.”

For the Environment Agency, approaching businesses thorough the Water Mark

scheme may prevent pollution by encouraging businesses to practice better

environmental management, and establish positive images of the Agency.

Interviewees also addressed that the site audit needs to be carried out by the

Environment Agency officers, who have expertise, as a part of their day-to-day

practice. Speaking from her previous employ experience as an Environment

Protection Officer in the Agency, Sarah Lester reported:

“[Site] visits are better to be done by the Environment Agency officers,

and they would rather want to do it themselves not to miss anything

[on the checklist]. … They do that kind of work everyday, anyway.”

Although the Environment Agency was actively involved in the pilot scheme, the

involvement of the local authorities has been limited. There were nine local

authorities that initially intended to get involved in the pilot scheme. However, two of

them, Pendle and Hyndburn, seem to get involved particularly in on-site specific

issues rather than in designing and monitoring the scheme. One interviewee reported

that local authorities might not see the waterside litter problem as their limits, so they

might find difficulties to commit time on the pilot scheme.

The Groundwork Business Environment Association got involved in the pilot scheme

through a business seminar that is organised to promote the pilot Water Mark scheme.

The Association is set up as a business membership club to help businesses to achieve

179


ISO35 14001, the Environmental Management Systems; the ISO 14000 series is a

voluntary set of standards intended to encourage organisations to systematically

address the environmental impacts on their activities (Pringle et al. 1998). The

interviewees emphasised the significant role of the Association in the pilot scheme in

relation to the comprehensive business networks and their expertise in dealing with

businesses. Many businesses from the Association members, who were already

interested in environment management, have signed up for the pilot Water Mark

scheme.

Most interviewee identified that the sole reason for businesses to get involved in the

scheme is obviously a good opportunity for positive publicity that can lead to positive

public relations.

“What we found there [in the pilot scheme] is that the business is keen

to get involved, and they’ve been very positive about responses from

getting involved. They’ve been very positive about the fact that they’ve

got an award they can put on the wall. They’ve been very positive

about the fact that they’ve got very good publicity out of it.” (Andrew

Coombe, Water Watch)

Nonetheless this publicity opportunity may be an attractive hook for larger size

businesses, the publicity may not be a high priority for smaller or medium size

businesses in persuading them to get involved in the scheme. Some interviewees

reported that technical advice can be a better hook for smaller businesses as Mary Lee

indicated; that one of the feedback businesses found particularly good were the

Environment Agency’s on-site advice and technical advice on the information pack.

In the following, Sarah Lester addressed that an environmental audit proceeding as a

part of the Water Mark scheme is a significant benefit for smaller businesses to get

involved:

“Some of the small companies may not know what their legal

requirement are on discharges or waste management practices. So I

see it as a way of working together with the regulator, because the

worst thing that can happen for them is something to go wrong, then

35 The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) is a non-governmental organisation aiming to facilitate the international exchange of goods and services by establishing international standards and reconciling regulatory differences between countries.

180


their ignorance is not a defending cause, so they get fined. It is really a

way of getting an audit done for free. For what they should have been

done for the minimum requirement, they have to pay somebody to do

that for them through some kinds of consultancies.”

Most interviewees agreed generally that the Water Mark scheme is an appealing

approach to facilitate a better environmental management practice of waterside

businesses. From the view of practitioner, Steven Beesley reported the value of the

Water Mark scheme:

“The Water Mark scheme for me is a very attractive proposal for

approaching any businesses. Without that, it is very difficult to go into

businesses to say ‘you are causing pollution, what you’re going to do

about it’. But we can go and say there is an award you can get for

what you should do.”

Although the principle of the scheme is agreed as an effective pathbreaking method

approaching businesses, there are questions about how the scheme should be

operated. How might facilitators raise supports and bring resources from partner

organisations to run the scheme? Why had the pilot scheme been mainly targeted to

larger businesses, although smaller businesses are much more problematic in

managing their waterside environments? How should facilitators handle differences of

management performance between larger businesses and smaller one?

Firstly, it has been clear that implementing the scheme requires considerable

resources both in time and money to make businesses take part in the Water Mark

(Water Watch, 2000). This is more obvious when they target smaller businesses that

require a very time consuming process in making first contact and promoting

environmental awareness. The Working Group of the Water Mark needs to address

wider involvement from various interest groups. However, this wider involvement

may be straightforward when the finalised scheme is launched and is organised by the

RVIs using the RVI’s local network and knowledge.

In order to encourage partners to get actively involved in the Water Mark, the

Working Group needs a set of much wider benefits of involving the scheme than just

business involvement. Considering the significant role of the regulatory agencies

implementing the scheme, the Working Group needs to stress to the Environment

181


Agency what they can get from the scheme. This may include opportunities to prevent

pollution before it becomes a serious problem and promote positive public relations

with businesses. Additionally, addressing the role of the Water Mark at the ISO 14001

certification may encourage involvement of another important player, Groundwork

Business Environment Association. There is a wide spread acknowledgement that

ISO 14001 standard is a management system standard, not a performance standard.

Hence, it may reduce its effectiveness in encouraging pollution prevention and limit

its ability to spur improvements in environmental performance (Krut and Gleckman,

1998; and Pringle et al. 1998). Furthermore, considering the standard encourages

holistic approach and external communication, the Water Mark may add the value of

the company’s environmental ‘performance’ and ‘external communication’ in

conducting an ISO 14001 audit.

For enhanced facilitation, additionally, the Working Group needs to secure support

not only from individual partners but also from the Campaign Centre. Most

businesses who signed up for the pilot scheme are members of Groundwork Business

Association but they are not the members of the Campaign or Campaign’s Business

Foundation. Although it was a testing scheme, the businesses have been contacted

through the Association’s networks rather than the Campaign’s network. This may

indicate that the Campaign had not been very supportive for the Water Mark at its

initial development stage. Andrew Coombe reported carefully that this might be

because of a lack of the Campaign’s support to the Water Watch in general, so as

same as the Water Mark that is initially organised by the Water Watch:

“Since the new chairman started, this has been much more emphasised

within the Campaign addressing issues on rubbish on waterways. A

problem which we had in the past is that the message we have been

saying about ‘Look, this [rubbish] is a problem, we need to take

seriously’ hadn’t been getting through. Hence, the Water Watch only

has limited support [from the Campaign]. We don’t have any central

government money from the DETR by the Campaign. We only have

money from our existing supporters.”

Therefore, the Water Mark may also need to develop hooks to attract the Campaign

to get more actively involved in the scheme and improve further working co-

ordinations between the Campaign and the Water Watch. This may include an

182


opportunity to broaden membership and involvement from the business sector

considering the business who signed up for the scheme may involve in further

Campaign’s activities as Andrew Coombe pointed:

“My personal opinion is that we [the Campaign] don’t do enough to

persuade the people who support the Campaign to take action

themselves. We just take attitude that ‘Oh, they support the Campaign,

therefore they are all right’. We are not trying to influence as much as

we should do. We are not allowed to upset them, … which put us in a

difficult position, because we rely on their funding. … It’s not very

good personally. That’s why this [Water Mark] is stepping forward.

You can go to businesses and say ‘Look, you already support the

Campaign, here is the step you can take within your company to do

something’. That’s why the Water Mark is a good scheme. … The

Water Mark can be a hook for businesses to get involved in the

Campaign on the ground, and after they involved, the Campaign

persuade the business to act on other Campaign issues.”

Additionally, the Water Mark’s pathbreaking roles in between businesses and local

communities may stimulate involvement from the Mersey Basin Trust.

The second question is related to the size of businesses in the pilot scheme. The Water

Watch (Water Watch, 2000: p3) stated that ‘small and medium sized businesses

should be particularly targeted because, from experience, they have been found to

have a particular impact on watercourses’. However, most of the businesses signed up

for the scheme were of a large size such as B&Q chains, Phillips and Waste Water

Treatment Works. Steven Beesley and Judy Yacoub explained that:

“The reason why these large ones come forward first is that the all of

them have got some kinds of environmental officer employed by the

companies. … They are very keen to work with communities and they

have already got that link. But small one didn’t have that sort of

resource.” (Steven Beesley)

“Most of the companies, which already signed up, have been involved

in some kinds of environmental improvement such as ISO 14001. In

183


some respects, it must be a lot easier for them and they didn’t have to

do a lot more.” (Judy Yacoub)

There are however some benefits of involving bigger companies for the pilot scheme,

for instant, a flagship effect to smaller businesses by giving credibility of the scheme

to smaller businesses. From her practical experience, Sarah Lester reported that:

“One of the companies in the Darwen catchment, Graham and Brown,

said when I went to see them that part of the reason they did this

scheme [Water Mark] was because they knew B&Q signed up to it.

They supply B&Q, so there is direct effect to supply chain.”

Following this context, Judy Yacoub added that:

“The other thing about B&Q is that having signed up one store they

are quite happy for any stores they have within the catchment area to

take part of the scheme.”

It is clear that the pilot scheme might take advantages getting larger companies

involved. Nevertheless, the Water Mark needs to develop more obvious hooks to

attract smaller businesses. This may include 1) free site audit for environmental

management; 2) better chance to achieve ISO 14001 by operating better

environmental management in day-to-day practice; 3) the potential for promoting a

positive image of the company; 4) an opportunity for better public relations by

working within local communities. Although it is outside of the scheme, a lesson

approaching to businesses can be learnt from the experience of the Sankey Now RVI

organising a sport event, five-a-side football challenge between local companies as a

part of the Mersey Basin Weekend36 2000. After these kinds of ice-breaking events

for businesses, the Water Mark scheme may be more accessible to participated

businesses.

Thirdly, how could the Water Mark handle differences of management performances

between larger businesses and smaller one in evaluating the audit for the award? Mary

Lee replied from the above question that:

“The scheme is designed to be equally applicable to large businesses

and small businesses, so it had to have flexibility to take into account

36 The Mersey Basin Weekends will be extensively investigated in section 7.4.2 as a part of Open Participation case studies.

184


of different site conditions, the amount of money they might have and

available manpower. So, it could be creating a waterside sitting area

for staff, or it could be a big management plan for their site. The idea

was not just making look pretty, but trying to encourage them to

consider the site nature conservation.”

Steven Beesley also reported that:

“It will take a lot of effort on the time of the [RVI] co-ordinator to help

them [smaller businesses] to design the scheme and convince them it

can be achievable on a smaller budget. Obviously we decided when we

drew up the criteria that any scheme should relate to the capability of

the company. A smaller one couldn’t be expected to do a larger

scheme.”

Although it seems that most interviewees were aware of this argument, there is still

the need to produce clearer guidelines in operating the site audit.

For the enhanced facilitation, Judy Yacoub also suggested that it is feasible to target

one or two businesses per year per RVI in the finalised scheme. This is because the

Water Mark requires a time consuming process but the RVI co-ordinators may find

difficulties to spend extra time and effort on the scheme within their current workload.

After completing the pilot scheme, the Water Mark is having difficulties in finding

resources to launch the finalised scheme. Therefore, it is worth considering launching

a joint award scheme with the Green Business Parks scheme that is a similar award

scheme developed by the Groundwork Trust. This may increase the credibility of the

scheme that may secure more support from both partner organisations and participant

businesses. By joining the two that are supported by the Environment Agency

separately, the combined award scheme may secure more active involvement from the

Agency, which is a fundamental aspect of operating the scheme.

The combined scheme may broaden target of businesses, not just pollution makers or

waterside location. As the Water Watch is thinking forward to create a waterside

adoption scheme, engaging two schemes may be much more feasible. The waterside

adoption scheme is to bring local businesses that are not adjacent to the watercourse

and waterside local community groups; and to get them involved in a long-term

commitment on managing particular waterside area where they adopted. This may

185


stimulate local stewardship of the waterside environments and encourage wider

involvement of businesses from outside watersides. Therefore, for both the Water

Mark and the Groundwork, the benefit of joined scheme may be of covering much

wider areas and bringing wider involvement and resources from each other and their

partners. The businesses from the GBP scheme, who may be involved in the adoption

scheme may have the potential for more positive publicity and better public relations.

Local waterside community groups may get support and resources from businesses in

their local areas, the Campaign and the Groundwork Trust.

7.3.2 The Showricks Bridge Project

This case study focuses on the facilitation process of a practical project. The

Showrick’s Bridge Project demonstrates the significance of facilitation in solving a

conflict between stakeholders. In carrying out the case study, three semi-structured

interviews and a site visit have been undertaken (Appendix 1).

BACKGROUND TO THE SHOWRICK’S BRIDGE PROJECT

During the First World War, the Ministry of Defence removed both Baines’ Bridge

and Showrick’s Bridge on the River Alt. Since then, there have been missing links in

an extensive footpath network in the West Lancashire and Sefton area (Figure 7.6).

The Ramblers Association, a national voluntary organisation with a focus on

footpaths, had persistently raised the issue of rebuilding those missing links for

twenty or so years. Ever since Lancashire County Council restored Baines’ Bridge by

working with the Ramblers Association in the late1980s, the replacement of

Showrick’s Bridge had been regarded as a high priority in developing the footpath

network of the area.

Figure 6.0.31 Footpath Network of West Lancashire and Sefton

To come later

Source: Ask to Rodney Flether or make a new one.

186


The Ramblers Association highlighted the missing link of Showrick’s Bridge during

the Alt Walks week, one of the social events of the Alt 2000 RVI, in May 1997

(Figure 7.7). The real progress was made when the Environment Agency funded a

new design and costing exercise for the bridge. A partnership between Sefton

Metropolitan Borough Council, Lancashire County Council, the Environment Agency

and the Countryside Commission assembled the funding package of £137,000 needed

to replace the bridge. In December 1997, Sefton Borough Council joined Lancashire

County Council in approving funding for the bridge, which was set to be in place by

summer 1998 (Mersey Basin Campaign, 1998).

Figure 7.0.32 Publication Highlighting the Missing Link of Showrick’sBridge

To come later


Note: Members of the Ramblers Association walk down to both side of the riverbanks

in order to get publicity addressing the missing footpath link.

The site of Showricks Bridge is located close to Maghull on the administrative border

between Sefton Borough Council and Lancashire County Council. The location

between two authorities was a major delaying the Showrick’s Bridge project for over

10 years. It was only in the final two years that real progress was made, largely

because of the intervention of the Alt 2000 RVI. This case study explores the

approach of the Alt 2000 RVI in facilitating the Showrick’s Bridge project.

DELIVERING SERVICES: FACILITATION

The Alt 2000 Access Group, one of sub-committees of the Alt 2000 Steering Group,

played a highly significant role in facilitating the Showrick’s Bridge project. At the

time of the project, the Access Sub-group included representatives of the Mersey

Basin Trust, Knowsley MBC, Sefton MBC, Lancashire County Council, the

Environment Agency, and Ramblers Association as active players. The key element,

which helped to facilitate the Showrick’s Bridge project, was Alt 2000’s collaborative

187


arena that allowed open discussion toward extensive consensus building between all

those players.

Firstly, the collaborative nature of Alt 2000 enabled the voice of voluntary groups to

be heard by governmental authorities. The Showrick’s Bridge project was a long-

standing issue of the Ramblers Association even before Alt 2000 got involved.

Rodney Flether, the representative of Ramblers Association at the Alt 2000 Access

Group, reported that, as a voluntary group, it was generally difficult to get the

message across to the authorities, but being in Alt 2000 put his organisation on the

same footing as other sectors in the Access Group:

“Alt 2000 has already got the other organisations. I couldn’t call the

meeting for the Showrick’s Bridge, but it [Alt 2000] could. So, Alt

2000 called the meeting, and I could go and make my point. … Without

a body like Alt 2000, I could have made my point to the local authority

but it would have taken longer and would have been less likely to be

accepted. These things do take time, but this facilitation saved time

because I had access to these people.”

Secondly, the collaborative discussion at the Alt 2000 Access Group extended the

issues of the Showrick’s Bridge to a wider group of stakeholders. Speaking from her

experience as a chairperson of the Alt 2000 Access Group at the time of the

Showrick’s Bridge project, Gwen White pointed out that:

“the problem of the Showrick’s Bridge was the cost. … They [Sefton

and Lancashire Councils] couldn’t possibly put it on top of their list of

priorities. It has been realised that it’s not just a Sefton and a

Lancashire problem, so we need to open it up. That’s what we did. …

Because it was in the agenda [of the Access Group], people knew the

Showrick’s Bridge was there to be tackled. The breakthrough was

somebody from the Environment Agency saying ‘we have a bit of

money, can we spend it on the Showrick’s Bridge?’ The Environment

Agency paid their consulting engineer to do some design and costing.”

Although the actual conflict of the project lay between Sefton Metropolitan Borough

Council and Lancashire County Council, it would be a mistake to dismiss this case as

being about a simple two-party negotiation. While the representatives of the two local

188


authorities could not stand each other, the intervention from the third party exerted

pressure on the two local authorities to promote the Showrick’s Bridge project. Her

point makes clear that a comprehensive consensus building by Alt 2000, where

communication and trust are strong, brought in the resources and efforts from all the

member organisations.

After the involvement of the Environment Agency in initial design and costing, Alt

2000 invited all interest groups to a meeting for the Showrick’s Bridge project on the

4th December 1996 at Maghull Town Council. The meeting was attended by

representatives of the Alt 2000, Sefton MBC, Lancashire CC, the Ramblers

Association, Environment Agency, Mersey Basin Trust, Maghull Town Council and

Mersey Waste Disposal Authority. As Rodney Fletcher reported, this particular

meeting was intended to open up the communication channels among conflicting

stakeholders:

“Over the years, Sefton has always said that Lancashire won’t pay

their part. …But in the [Maghull] Town Hall meeting, the Bridge

Master from Lancashire said ‘you can have the bridge tomorrow if

Sefton pays their part’. … So, I said [in the meeting] if you [Sefton]

don’t put it back in, we would take you to the Court under the Section

56 of the Highways Act. The person from Sefton went back to his office

and estimated how much it would cost if we go to the court and how

much it would cost if we put the bridge in. It turned out to be cheaper

to put the bridge in than to go to the court. So, we’ve got the bridge.”

Rodney Fletcher referred to a bargaining process of the facilitation. The Section 56 of

the Highways Act (Cross and Sauvain, 1981), Proceedings for an Order to Repair

Highway has been a bargaining tool in resolving conflict caused by bureaucratic

planning practice. Gwen White reported that this facilitation has been implemented

collaboratively than adversely:

“The other elements in this [the Showrick’s Bridge project] was

actually Sefton was legally bound to replace the bridge. There was an

obligation according to the Highways Act to replace the bridge legally.

Politically in Sefton it was difficult for them to justify spending this

money on this bridge because of the tight budget. … The engineers in

189


Sefton actually asked us [Alt 2000] to ask the Ramblers Association to

threaten them with high court action as the way of unblocking the

political will to do this, because the Ramblers Association was also a

member of Alt 2000. So, the chair of the local branch [of the Ramblers

Association] wrote to Sefton saying they would take legal action. That

was a kind of face-saver for the local authority. Because the bridge

wasn’t on the top of the list, the threat from the third party, the legal

action, was what they needed. … Up to then, everybody had known

that the Ramblers could do that, but nobody wanted to push that far.

So nothing had been done for years and years. … But, it wouldn’t have

happened without Alt 2000.”

This demonstrates a good example of collaborative facilitation enhancing preception

and understanding, resolving conflicts and remaining open to counterarguments. The

most important lesson that can be learnt from this case is that an ‘informal’ way of

collaborative actions can be more effective than a ‘formal’ way to solve conflicts that

caused by the bureaucratic practice of planning. However, this collaborative

facilitation can be implemented where there is a conprehensive consensus building

process that promotes ownership and wider vision of the partnership. As is shown in

this case, the representatives, in particular, of Sefton did not only represent the

interests of Sefton but worked for a much wider vision of the partnership. The role of

Alt 2000 was important to open up the issues initially and solve conflicts before it

caused more serious problems.

In terms of meeting structure and management for better collaborative facilitation,

Gwen White added:

“It does help saying I am from the Mersey Basin Campaign because

it’s large and it’s mutual. People respond to such a body. If one of the

partners did the same thing, I don’t think they would get the same

response. … Alt 2000 does the same thing once it is established. … [In

this context] I think it is important to have a chair [at the working

group] who aren’t threatening and doesn’t have particular baggage.”

Because facilitation processes are usually operating under conditions of conflict, the

role of facilitators is important. Facilitators should be able to bring experience and

190


ability to the task at hand and seek to protect the impartiality and credibility of the

processes in the eyes of all parties (Elliott, 1999).

7.3.3 Summary of Facilitation

The two case studies show clearly that facilitation is not just a negotiation process

between conflicting bodies. As it can be seen in the Showrick’s Bridge case, when

there is a well-established collaborative culture in the working group, facilitation can

be mostly implemented as a part of a comprehensive consensus building process. This

is because an accomplished consensus building process can: 1) build better

communication and understanding among participants; 2) open up the discussion and

bring resources from all members who participate; and 3) unlock opportunities to

resolve potential conflicts that are unlikely to be resolved in a traditional approach of

planning. When there is a poorly developed consensus building or facilitation runs

without the basis of consensus building at the working group, it is important for

facilitators to identify existing networks in relation to the project initially. Meeting

management skills of facilitators may also be useful to increase participants’

motivation and commitment in practice.

7.4 Open Participation in Practice

The two case studies that are examined for open participation are the Mersey Basin

Weekends for inviting members of the Campaign, and the Kingfisher and

Dragonfly/Damselfly Surveys for inviting members of the general public. The

Weekends are recognised as a well-established annual event for voluntary action in

the region since 1992 whilst there have been only three Kingfisher Survey since 1988

due to a lack of resources.

7.4.1 The Mersey Basin Weekends

The case study of the Mersey Basin Weekends is to investigate an open participation

process in organising events for members of the Campaign, in particular, from

voluntary groups. With regard to the Weekends, seven semi-structured interviews

191


have been undertaken, and four events of the 1999 and 2000 Weekends have been

observed (Appendix 1).

BACKGROUND TO THE MERSEY BASIN WEEKENDS

The Mersey Basin Weekend is an annual event undertaking practical action to

improve and raise awareness about local watercourses in the Mersey Basin. These

involve the Mersey Basin Trust members, other Campaign partners, voluntary groups

and general public in the Mersey Basin. The Weekend was launched in 1992

celebrating five years of voluntary environmental action of the Trust. The Weekend

has been held annually in the first weekend of October focusing on voluntary

waterside projects such as river and stream clean-ups, environmental works, guided

walks, water sports and educational events. The aim of the Weekends is eventually to

deliver the Campaign’s activity at the local level, but also to generate high level of

publicity and awareness of local issues and the Campaign itself.

The number of events are variable in each year, however, over 100 events have been

organised every year (Table 7.4). Considering most events of the Weekends are

organised by the member of the Trust, who are mostly environmental voluntary

groups, more than half of total events are, not surprisingly, related to clean-ups and

other environmental works. To support the Weekend projects, the Trust arranges

project grants, usually 100 pounds per selected project, coming from members of

Business Foundation and Stream Care. The result of the Weekend is reported to the

Annual General Meeting of the Trust, which is held on the weekend after the Mersey

Basin Weekend.

Table 7.0.21 Number of Events in the Mersey Basin Campaign 1997-1999

Unit: Number of events (% of events)

Type of Event 1997 1998 1999Clean up 31 (28.7%) 27 (25.2%) 35 (29.4%)Other Environmental Work 27 (25%) 33 (30.8%) 26 (21.8%)Guided Walk 12 (11.1%) 7 (6.6%) 14 (11.8%)Educational Event 7 (6.5%) 17 (15.9%) 19 (16%)Water Sports 4 (3.7%) 8 (7.5%) 9 (7.5%)Other 27 (25 %) 15 (14%) 16 (13.5%)

192


Total 108 107 119Source: Adapted from (Bates, 1999)

DELIVERING SERVICES: OPEN PARTICIPATION

The Weekends are more likely to be organised by voluntary groups themselves. Ann

Bates, the 1999 Weekend organiser, pointed out that:

“the Weekend has been organised by posting information on and

registration form of the Weekend to the Trust members based on the

database [of previous year participants]. Then, individual member

organisations decided what they will do for the Weekend and sent back

their registration form. This is a kind of self-organised event and

depends on an each year organiser.”

Her point echoes three aspects in organising the Weekend. First, the Weekend is

rather targeting existing supporters than developing the involvement of new ones.

Because of the way of organising the Weekends, there is limitation involving general

public or voluntary groups that are not members of the Trust. Second, the organiser

has a sole responsibility in the entire process and contributes to the success of the

Weekend. However, the Weekends have been organised by the temporary part-time

staff employed in between June and October. Ann Bates also reported that unskilled

and discontinuous personnel might cause missing data and files of previous year

events. Third, the Weekend is “a kind of self-organised event”. The Weekends are

widely recognisable events among voluntary groups in the Campaign area, so that

local community groups participate voluntarily to the Weekend events. Then, what

does make the voluntary group get involved readily in the Weekends?

This research identified 32 organisations that participated continuously in the

Weekends for three years between 1997 and 199937 (Table 7.5). Examining those 32

organisations, three similarities among them may be found. Firstly, all 32

organisations have a strong network with the Campaign, especially, through the Trust

and RVIs. Without a doubt, key partners of the Campaign and ranger services are

closely involved in the Campaign’s activities. Secondly, not only the key partners and

ranger services, but also 11 voluntary groups have been recognised as well-37 The 1996 Campaign Weekend data was not available, and the actual case study activities for this research were completed in the early 2000 before the 2000 Weekend was organised.

193


established organisations in the area. Most of 11 voluntary groups have organised

their own projects for the Weekend instead of taking a part in a project organised by

bigger organisations. Finally, the grant of the Weekend is a small amount, but a very

attractive hook for voluntary groups, as Tony Jones pointed out.

Table 7.0.22 Successive Participation in the Mersey Basin Weekends, 1997-1999

Type of Organisation Number of Organisation

Supporting FundingReceived* Not Received

Voluntary Group 11 8 3School 2 1 1

Key Partners of the Campaign 9 4 5Ranger Service 8 4 4

Other 2 1 1Total 32 18 14

* Number of participants who received the Weekend support funding in any year

Source: Author, Modified from Appendix 2: Activities and Participants of the Mersey

Basin Weekends 1997-1999.

Specking from a voluntary group point of view, Colin Greenall, Committee Member

of the Sankey Canal Restoration Society that is one of the eleven voluntary groups,

reported:

“The [Sankey Canal Restoration] Society has a quite close

relationship with the Groundwork St. Helens and Sankey Now [RVI].

We are member of Sankey Now [Steering Group], and when Gill

Maltby was a Sankey Now Co-ordinator, she used to attend the

committee meeting of the Society. … We do what we do, but if we do

our work on the Campaign’s Weekend day we can get a grant for what

we are doing anyway. So that is good.”

As another reason for the voluntary group to get involved in the Weekend, John

Foley, Waterway Recovery Group, reported that:

“Community organisations are usually trying to get involved in bigger

organisations or bigger events, for example, the Mersey Basin

Weekend. … Yes, a grant is one thing, but small community

organisations are always trying to be a part of something big. They

feel more comfortable in that way.”

194


Colin Greenall’s comment confirms that a close network with the Campaign and a

grant opportunity have promoted the involvement to the Weekend. His point,

however, brought up another argument in organising open participation events.

Although the events in the Weekends facilitate the practical improvement works in

the Mersey Basin, the Weekend activities are, however, what the participating

organisations are normally doing as their routine procedures. Therefore, the activity in

the Weekend would not be seen as extra efforts to the voluntary action in the Mersey

Basin.

Responding this point, Gwen White, former Community Officer of the Mersey Basin

Trust, and Caroline Downey, Director of the Mersey Basin Trust, emphasised that the

Weekend was originally allocated in the publicity and marketing side of the

Campaign. In terms of amount of community work, there is no difference whether

voluntary groups carry out their work on the Weekend date or one day after.

Nonetheless, the result of the Weekend is important for the Trust because it provides

statistic evidence of community action of the Campaign. Considering there is no

obvious tool to measure the outcome from voluntary action, the result of the Weekend

is apparent to the Campaign and other supporting partners, especially to the DETR,

that the community group is a part of and working with the Campaign.

In order to make community groups to organise their work on the Weekend as an

annual basis, Caroline Downey reported that:

“They [community groups] may organise their work before or after the

Weekend, if they didn’t know when the Weekend is. So, it is important

to set an absolute date of the Weekend such as every first weekend of

October so that every community group knows exactly when the

Weekend will be organise. It would be helpful to put the Weekend event

on their annual schedule, not week after or week before.”

A common argument on open participation is that it is difficult to control all activities

that are organised by individual participants. For example, there are many tree

planting and habitat management events throughout the Weekends, but individual

participants may not have obvious guidelines or expert advices on which tree species

and which area is suitable for tree planting. Therefore, it can give rather negative

impact on local flora or local wildlife habitat. In order to avoid this, the community

195


group, who is involved in the Weekends, has been advised to contact their local RVI

or Community Officer, when the community group needs an expertise advice on their

project. Caroline Downey added that one of requirement for the group who awarded a

Weekend grant is to contact a local expertise group such as Mersey Forest, Ranger

Services, Andrew Pond Life and Wildlife Trust. This advising procedure may be also

a good opportunity for those community groups to broaden their local networking.

The Trust encourages networking among the Weekend participants by organising

joint projects between participating organisations, which propose a similar kind of

work in a same area. This enables the voluntary group to observe and learn from other

groups operating similar practice. Furthermore, when the participating organisation is

willing to make further networking with other groups, the Trust organises initial

contact as a facilitator and offers a limited amount of expenditure such as travelling

costs.

The Mersey Basin Weekends have been recognised as well-established and successful

events by the Campaign (Bates, 1999; Mersey Basin Campaign, 2000c; and Mersey

Basin Trust, 2000). Many interviewees worried that employing different temporary

part-time staff for the Weekend organiser each year might endanger satisfactory

outcomes of the Weekend. This is because: 1) the temporary organiser may not be

well qualified to work on organising a regional event; 2) changing personnel may

cause difficulties in accumulating expertise and experience in organising the

Weekends; and 3) the changing of organisers may lose connections with participants

from previous year considering the personal networking is essential, in particular,

related to voluntary activities. Caroline Downey suggested that employing a

secondary community officer for the Trust, who can concentrate on events including

the Weekends, would be ideal.

Another common issue raised among the interviewees including Ann Bates is that the

database of the Campaign that has been used for posting the initial invitation letters of

the Weekend is not reliable. John Foley in Waterway Recovery Group reported that:

“We have received the same marital twice regarding to the Mersey

Basin Weekend this year [1999]. It has been posted to us in two

slightly different addresses. These things don’t give a good impression

to us and anybody in other organisations.”

196


The aspect of updating database and streamlining the archive management system in

the Campaign is not a new issue, and there is no need to emphasis more about

streamlining the database of the Campaign.

Although the Weekends are advertised in the Campaigner, newsletter of the

Campaign, the initial invitation letter is the main marketing tool in organising the

Weekends. Therefore, the Weekends are organised for and by members of the

Campaign, and it has limitations in extending its scope to general public. Involving

the general public to the Weekends may: 1) extend wider involvements in open

participation for the Campaign; 2) create valuable opportunities in terms of education

and awareness for local residents in the area; and 3) offer opportunities for voluntary

groups to get new supporters for their groups. Caroline Downey suggested that flyer

posters advertising the Weekends through ranger service could be useful in terms of

involving new community groups and members of general public.

Involving a wider range of interest groups is essential for effective open participation.

Additionally, evaluating outcomes of open participation is fundamental for the

partnership. The evaluations of the Weekend within the Campaign Centre have not

adequately taken into account, as it concerns less about long-term and secondary

effects of voluntary actions. The number of events organised during the Weekends is

notably important for the Campaign’s accountability reason. Peter Wilson, the DETR,

reported that the Campaign has to prove the certainty of achievements to the DETR in

order to justify their future funding from the government. While the numbers and

statistics of voluntary action are the requirements of the central government, the

numbers of the Weekend events cannot be ignored. However, the outcomes of the

Weekends can also fulfil numerous other purposes. A good example of wider effects

of voluntary action can be seen from the author’s experience involving in a Weekend

event with the Sankey Canal Restoration Society in 1999:

The Sankey Canal Restoration Society is a voluntary group carrying

out physical works to restore and repair the filled or dry docks of the

Sankey Canal. As a part of the 1999 Mersey Basin Weekend, they did a

restoration work at Penkford Bridge and Newton Common Lock of the

Canal. Their work brought great interests from local residents. One of

local residents mentioned that she was curious about what those

strangers were doing in her neighbourhood, but she was delighted to

197


know this neglected area was actually a part of the canal. When the

members of the Society were straggling to remove a large block of

solid asphalt concrete that was dumped after the road surface work,

another local resident approached to the site and offered help. He said

he works with an industrial crane, so he could come back next day and

remove the asphalt block by himself. And he did.

The amount of physical improvement works of voluntary group may not be

significant. However, as this story echoes, the impact of the voluntary group action on

the local neighbourhood is massive. Simply, those educational and awareness effects

toward local stewardship cannot be achieved by governmental bodies.

The Weekends are good marketing tools, but it has limitations in empowering the

community that is a primary goal of community participation. Because of the way

organising the Weekends, it is difficult to get ‘hard-to-reach’ community groups

involved. Caroline Downey reported that the Weekends, as big community events of

the Campaign, also played a role in making a connection with between ‘hard-to-

reach’ groups. There was a Weekend event inviting an ethnic minority group, the Wai

Yin Chinese Women Society in Manchester, as a part of the 2000 Weekend. For more

effective management for the Weekend events, Caroline Downey suggested a way to

promote the feeling that the Campaign values the community actions:

“Every staff in the Campaign needs to go and visit the Weekend sites.

Just wearing the Campaign T-shirt on will be enough to show the

Campaign’s interests to them. … In that way, the local community

groups who participate in the Weekend events may feel that the

Campaign is taking care of what they are doing. And they will come

back next year.”

The Campaign used to organise a social event for the Weekend participants on a night

of the Weekend. The social event has been cancelled since the 1998 Weekend due to

the lack of resources. However, it was a good opportunity of acknowledging the

participants’ efforts, delivering education and awareness programmes to the local

community, and enhancing networks between the Campaign partners and local

voluntary groups.

198


7.4.2 Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly Surveys

The case study of Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly Surveys is to explore a

process of open participation in inviting general public to get involved in survey for

numbers and distributions of wildlife species in the region. To carry out this case

study, three semi-structured interviews have been undertaken (Appendix 1).

BACKGROUND TO THE KINGFISHER AND DRAGONFLY/DAMSELFLY

SURVEYS

In May 1988, the Mersey Basin Trust and Lancashire Wildlife Trust undertook a

survey for a number and distribution of kingfishers. After this pilot scheme in 1988,

the Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly Surveys (Kingfisher Survey below) had been

re-launched in 1995 as a Campaign’s 10th anniversary year event (Hind, 1995).

Because of satisfactory result in the 1995 survey, the Mersey Basin Trust decided to

establish this survey as a regular event in three-year interval. Between 1st May and

30th September, the Mersey Basin Trust with support from the private sector sponsors

of the Campaign asks members of the public to report any sightings of the kingfisher

and dragonfly/damselfly in the Basin area. The survey took place on all watercourses

in Cheshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester, South Lancashire and High Peak area

of Derbyshire (Mersey Basin Campaign, 1999). The survey information and

questionnaire had been distributed to libraries, tourism information centres and

schools, and the Trust members in the area.

One of the aims of the surveys is to establish base-line information of numbers and

distribution of the wildlife species in the Mersey Basin (Table 7.6). However, the

primary aim is to raise awareness of the existence of wildlife, which relies on clean

water within the Basin, so as to highlight the achievements of the Campaign and to

encourage local people to perceive their watercourses in a positive light. The survey

may also bring educational opportunities to wider audience. The aims of the 1998

survey are:

to compare to the results with other surveys carried out in 1988 and 1995 and

assess any improvement;

199


to raise awareness of the importance of the clean water for wildlife within the

Mersey Basin; this would also encourage local people to value their watercourses

for the benefit and enjoyment they can get through involvement in local projects;

and

to highlight the achievements of the Mersey Basin Campaign and its key

partners (Dawson and Eagles, 1999).

Table 7.0.23 Summary of the Kingfisher Survey Results

Unit: Number of sightings (%: Comparison with previous survey)Wildlife Species Period 1988 1995 1998

KingfishersMay 176 184 (+8%) 188 (+2.1%)

May-Sep. - 704 905 (+28.5%)

Dragonflies/Damselflies May-Sep. - 3,990 3,628 (-9.1%)

Source: Adapted from Dawson and Eagles (1999), Mersey Basin Campaign (1999)

and Hind (1995)

Note: The 1988 survey was undertaken on the only subject of numbers of kingfishers

for a month period in May.

DELIVERING SERVICES: OPEN PARTICIPATION

The rationale behind the survey is that the presence of kingfishers and dragonflies/

damselflies depends on high quality water to be able to survive. However, the survey

does not show scientific results. Firstly, number of sightings depends on population

density of the area. For example, the 1998 survey indicated that numbers of kingfisher

and dragonfly/damselfly sightings were significantly high in urban areas of

Manchester where have generally been known as poor water quality areas. On the

other hand, High Peach, where is generally known as a good water quality area but

relatively rural area, had lower number of sightings. Secondly, different habitat

requirements of two species (kingfishers and dragonflies) generated sceptical results

in numbers of sights in a particular area. For instant, Table 7.7 shows that

Macclesfield and High Peak have a similar number of kingfisher sightings, but

dragonfly/damselfly has been seen 150 sightings more in Macclesfield than High

200


Peak. Vice versa, Wigan and Bolton have significantly different numbers of

kingfisher sightings although they are similar in number of dragonfly/damselfly

sightings.

Table 7.24 Comparison in Numbers of Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly

Sightings in the 1998 Survey

Unit: sightingsArea Number of Kingfishers Numbers of Dragonflies

Macclesfield 42 236High Peak 49 82

Bolton 115 208Wigan 22 271

Source: Adapted from Dawson and Eagles (1999: p6)

Although the surveys are not totally based on scientific methods, the survey shows

some evidence of the relationship between water quality and wildlife sightings. One

example can be found in Trafford and Salford where possess high population density

as parts of Manchester metropolitan. The survey indicates lower numbers of sightings

in both species due to polluted water in the Manchester Ship Canal that passes

through the area. However, Lucie Eagles, one of authors of the 1998 survey report,

emphasises that the primary aim of the survey is for public awareness and publicity

than the scientific results on water quality:

“It’s difficult to carry out a highly scientific study because some areas

have a higher population density and therefore have more potential

spotters. … [But] a considerable number of scientific surveys [on

water quality] are done by the Environment Agency, and there are so

many scientific data that we can use. So the survey didn’t need to be

scientific. … It [the survey] aims for public awareness not scientific

results.”

The interviewees reported that the selection of the wildlife species for the survey was

important in order to meet two major aims of the survey: distribution of wildlife in

relation to water quality in the Mersey Basin; and public awareness on watercourse

environments. The kingfisher and dragonfly/damselfly have been chosen as survey

species because 1) they are indications of clean water; and 2) their looks attract

people’s attention. Obvious benefits having attractive wildlife species as a survey

201


target are a considerable number of responses and publicity opportunities after the

survey completed.

There were over 1300 responses in 1998, and every year the participants have been

increasing (Dawson and Eagles, 1999). Furthermore, there were over 20 articles

published on local newspapers in relation to the Kingfisher Survey in 199838. It was

significant amount of publication from single survey project undertaken with limited

resources, as Tony Jones, former Executive Director of the Mersey Basin Trust,

reported. An amount of publicity that the surveys could generate is also important in

terms of involving businesses into the surveys. In carrying out the surveys, the Trust

needed resources from businesses in order to cover the costs of printing materials and

postages. A good publicity could not only secure involvement from businesses, but

also provide an opportunity to highlight the achievement of the Campaign. Publicity

of the Campaign’s achievements would encourage the feelings of achievement among

partners of the Campaign, that is a fundamental element for comprehensive consensus

building, as discussed in Section 7.2.

Selecting appropriate wildlife species for the survey might act as an essential element

to meet the three goals of the surveys. Additionally, the comprehensive networking of

the Campaign was also a critical element in carrying out the surveys. Networking has

performed in three different ways. Firstly, private sector networks within the

Campaign could enhance credibility in getting businesses involved. The Trust needed

to approach to bigger businesses contributing a large amount of costing. Most

businesses, which offered sponsorship to the surveys, have already been involved in

the Campaign and regarded as key players of the Campaign. Secondly, the Trust was

able to get professional advice and practical information through the Campaign’s

network in producing survey martial; e.g. information pack, questionnaire and final

report. For example, the survey information pack instructing how to identify different

species of dragonflies and damselflies has been produced with help from the Insect

Line, British Dragonfly Society and Cheshire Wildlife Trust. Furthermore, high

quality photographs for the final report have been brought from the RSPB and English

Nature. Thirdly, the distribution of survey questionnaires had also been through the

Campaign’s network. Although the surveys are targeting general members of the

38 These include: Daily Post (1998); Reporter South Manchester (1999); Stockport Times (1999); Howie (1999); Freethy (1999); Ellesmere Port Standard (1999); Going for Green (1999); Hartley (1999); and Hegarty (1999).

202


public, members of the Trust including schools have been actively involved in the

surveys because they are already interested in environmental and educational issues.

From the experience of the Mersey Basin Weekends, it is clear that events for open

participation need to be organised in regular basis so as to secure continuous

involvement. Tony Jones argued that lack of resources has been an impediment in

undertaking the surveys. Although the Trust managed to get resources from private

sector partners in terms of producing material, they had to recruit student placements

for the survey co-ordinators. He also reported that lack of resources forced the surveys

in irregular basis until 1995 and it became an event in three-year interval afterwards;

not as an annual event. Lucie Eagles reported that the database of the1995 survey

containing names and addresses of participants has been lost. Consequently, the

survey organiser was not able to contact to previous survey participants in order to

encourage them to participate in the following1998 survey. Again, this emphasises the

need of effective archive management practice within the Campaign.

Considering an educational purpose is a most popular reason of involving open

participation events, the Trust emphasised the surveys as an educational package. The

information pack has been circulated for providing a sample method of identifying

precise species of dragonfly/damselfly. However, it also has potential to encourage

teachers to use the information pack as a teaching tool.

It is clear that the surveys need to be designed for both surveying and educational

purposes in order to maximise its outcome. In this context, the survey result reports

are also needed to consider an educational function as the Trust sent out the survey

reports to survey participants after the completion of the surveys. This may generate a

positive feeling among participants that the Campaign values their efforts in carrying

out the surveys, and it may encourage individuals to develop their partisanship and

commitment to the future Campaign’s activities. Providing a feedback to participants

can develop an informing level of participation, as it described in the ‘ladder of

citizen participation (Arnstein, 1969)’, and this is a potential step for higher levels of

participation in future.

203


7.4.3 Summary of Open Participation

For the organising body, open participation can not only bring wider involvement but

also be a good marketing tool for the partnership. It is now clear that open

participation can generate a great deal of publicity and provide evidence of wider

support from various sectors. This may ensure the credibility of the organisation to

both member partners and general public. A stronger networking and funding

opportunity have been identified as the reasons for informal members to get involved

in the open participation events. In addition, an educational purpose is the main hook

for general public.

7.5 Conclusion

This chapter explored six detailed case studies to investigate service delivery

operation of the Campaign according to the three aspects of collaborative

partnerships: consensus building; facilitation; and open participation. By exploring

specific cases of Campaign activities through the views of practitioners, this chapter

showed how collaborative efforts can be delivered in a real-life context and judged

the applicability of theory and principles to the practice of planning. Generally

speaking, the Campaign is in consistent with the principles of collaborative planning.

However, particular political circumstances of the Campaign forced the Campaign to

develop alternative ways to deliver collaborative efforts than those presented in

theories; for example, consensus building process in the Council.

It is now clear that the three aspects of collaborative partnerships cannot be isolated.

This research shows that having a shared ownership of the partnership between

member representatives is fundamental for effective consensus building. Once

participating member representatives have feelings of achievement, their stimulated

ownership of the partnership may act as a catalyst to motivate action from their parent

organisations. Two case studies on facilitation show that effective facilitation must be

in the basis of the comprehensive consensus building. A comprehensive networking

between member partners is essential for open participation. The ownership among

participants may be stimulated when they possess feelings of achievement. Therefore,

small-scale projects run by the voluntary group, which can be easily organised with

little efforts and funds, may provide a considerable impact on developing ownership

204


of the partnership. This is especially true at the beginning of partnership

establishment.

205

Chapter Eight: Conclusions

Chapter Eight:

Conclusions

206


8.1 Introduction

This chapter sets out the final conclusions for the whole thesis. Firstly, this chapter

begins by summarising the structure of investigation of theoretical frameworks and

case studies that had been carried out. Secondly, the chapter discusses the lessons

learnt from this research and provides an evaluation of the research presented in the

thesis. Finally, this chapter discusses future research possibilities in the wider

spectrum of collaborative planning and presents a research agenda in relation to a

collaborative approach to integrated waterside revitalisation.

8.2 Research Summary

The central aim of this thesis was to investigate how collaborative efforts can be made

in a real-life practice, especially for integrated waterside revitalisation. Much prior

research in the field of collaborative planning has focused on the processes of conflict

resolution and consensus building in approaching this question. Nevertheless, there

has been little effort to understand the notion of collaborative practice dealing with

the issues of sustainability. The remained question was how diverse members of

society and the planners hoping to achieve sustainability principles can act more

effectively together in the face of political inequality. This thesis focused on the

practice of waterside revitalisation. This was an attempt to promote more focused

efforts rather than to cover wider-ranging planning practice, as a certain geographical

boundary, such as a river basin, helped focus on particular issues and emphasised on

area-based targets.

This thesis had two distinct parts. In the first part of this thesis, Chapters 1,2,3 and 4

were intended to conceptualise collaborative partnership approaches drawing on

theories of governance, collaborative planning, partnership, and integrated watershed

management. Chapters 5, 6 and 7, the second part, aimed at investigating how the

collaborative partnership approach has fared in a concrete example of waterside

revitalisation and to judge the applicability of theory and principles to a real-life

context.

Chapter 1 set out the background and context of the research, along with the

development of the topic within an appropriate methodological framework. The

207


chapter developed the main aim of the research to fill the gaps that are identified

through observations and reviews of theory and practice in the field of collaborative

planning. The overall structure of the thesis was also introduced in the chapter.

In Chapter 2, the theories of governance were applied to the practice of waterside

revitalisation. This chapter attempted to conceptualise governance in terms of: the

three characteristics (dynamic, complexity and diversity); the four types of planning

style (the bureaucratic model, the political influence model, the ideological model and

the collaborative model); and the three modes of governance (hierarchies, markets and

networks). This research illustrated the periodical review of governance in the UK in

relation to types of planning style and the modes of governance. Based on the concept

of the ecosystem approach, this research developed the nine principles for integrated

waterside revitalisation. Drawn on these discussions, the chapter emphasised the need

for collaborative planning in order to implement integrated waterside management.

Chapter 3 explored the concept of collaborative planning both in theory and in

practice. By evaluating advantages and limitations of the collaborative planning

theory, this research found that partnerships are desirable instruments for

implementation of collaborative planning in a real-life context. With an assumption

that partnerships are effective responses to the range of complex issues and problems

associated with water management and development, the notion of partnerships was

explored in this chapter. This included its definition, the political background of the

apparent, typology, and the life cycle.

Building on earlier chapters, in Chapter 4 a theoretical framework was developed for

the case studies. Even if partnership is the correct instrument for integrated waterside

management, it is impracticable to think that all partnership arrangements function in

the same way. Therefore, this research provided principles and guidelines for

implementation of collaborative partnerships performing effective integrated

waterside revitalisation. These were according to the four stages of a partnership life

cycle: pre-partnership collaboration; partnership creation and consolidation;

partnership programme delivery; and partnership termination and succession.

Chapter 5 introduced the case study, the Mersey Basin Campaign. This chapter

examined the research methodologies applied to the case studies: literature review,

interviewing, observation and participation (taking part in practical projects). The

208


chapter also set out the reasons for choosing the case study, including the choice of

six individual case studies within the Campaign activities. The chapter provided a

background to the case study, including the objectives, institutional structure, and

scope of activities.

Chapter 6 investigated institutional arrangements of a particular collaborative

partnership, the Mersey Basin Campaign by applying the theoretical framework that

developed in Chapter 4. This chapter aimed at investigating how the theory and

principles of institutional arrangements for the collaborative partnership have fared in

the experience of the Mersey Basin Campaign. This research identified good practice

and limitations in the experience of the Campaign, and drew lessons that can be

applied and disseminated more widely. This involved an investigation on the

establishment and operation of a particular collaborative partnership at each of the

four stages in its life cycles.

Chapter 7 dealt with more specific cases of delivering partnership services. It is clear

that dialogue in the collaborative arena leading to comprehensive understandings is a

fundamental element in delivering the partnership service. Focusing on the

partnership service delivery of the Campaign, this chapter explored the three aspects

of the collaborative partnership within Campaign activities: consensus building;

facilitation; and open participation. By exploring six cases of collaborative practice

through the views of practitioners, the chapter showed how collaborative efforts can

be made in a real-life context, and judged the applicability of theory and principles to

the practice of planning.

8.3. Research Findings and Evaluation of the Research

The central aim of this thesis is to investigate how a collaborative partnership

approach as presented in contemporary planning theories can be applied to, and

improve, a process of integrated waterside revitalisation in the practice of planning. It

can be argued that this aim has been achieved in a great extent. In particular, this

research demonstrated a mechanism of delivering collaborative efforts in a real-life

context, which might have general applicability. This section evaluates research

findings of this thesis at each of the four research objectives that were presented in

209


Chapter 1. Bearing in mind this central question, this research developed four research

objectives that needed to be investigated. These are:

1. to examine how a process of integrated waterside revitalisation may be

conceptualised as a collaborative partnership approach, with particular reference

to theories of governance, collaborative planning, partnership, and integrated

watershed management (Conceptualisation: Chapters 2, 3 and 4);

2. to investigate how the theory and general principles of the collaborative

partnership approach have fared in a concrete example of waterside revitalisation;

focused on institutional arrangements and implementation of a collaborative

partnership in a particular river basin (Real-life Context: Chapters 5, 6 and 7);

3. to develop guidelines to ensure that the particular practice of integrated waterside

revitalisation is consistent with the principles of a collaborative partnership

approach (Guidelines: Chapters 4, 6 and 7); and

4. at the same time, to judge the applicability of theory and principles to a real-life

context (Applicability: Chapters 6 and 7).

8.3.1 Objective One: Conceptualisation

to examine how a process of integrated waterside revitalisation may be

conceptualised as a collaborative partnership approach, with

particular reference to theories of governance, collaborative planning,

partnership, and integrated watershed management

This research started by reviewing a comprehensive set of literature on governance,

collaborative planning, partnership and inter-organisational theories in order to

engage those theories to the practice of integrated waterside revitalisation. In this

research, collaborative planning has been conceptualised in relation to characteristics

of governance (diversity and interdependence) and the modes of governance (markets,

hierarchies and networks). Generally speaking, collaborative planning deals with both

diversity of players and interdependence between them (see Figure 2.2: From

Government towards Governance, in Section 2.3.2). This research also noted the

emphasis of the network mode of governance in defining the concept of collaborative

planning. However, it cannot be ignored that hierarchies and markets are also

210


important modes of governance for collaborative planning to enable organisations

operate in planning practice.

The research identified nine principles of waterside revitalisation based on the

ecosystem approach: cleanliness; conservation; connectivity; accessibility; usability;

diversity; affordability; attractiveness; and stewardship (see Figure 2.4: Ecosystem

and Principles for Waterside Revitalisation, in Section 2.4.1). This emphasised the

particular need for collaborative efforts in integrated waterside revitalisation. It

highlighted the fact that no single organisation can solve the problems of ecosystem

management unilaterally, even in the case of the least jurisdictionally complex

ecosystem. It was also pointed out that the institutional arrangements for integrated

waterside management must allow consideration of a wide range of alternatives to

solve observed problems, including those that may be outside of the specific

responsibilities of the planning bodies.

The need for collaborative planning has been emphasised over the last two decades.

The advantages of collaborative efforts are broadly summarised as follows:

A collaborative approach provides a structured framework for encouraging

pluralist inputs to policy-making;

A collaborative approach provides a mechanism for building consensus and more

especially for transforming interests;

A collaborative approach is flexible; and

A collaborative approach has the potential to generate more stable policy

outcomes.

On the other hand, there is wide spread acknowledgement that collaborative planning

theory has operational problems in translating to the practice of planning. These are:

The construction of a discourse arena: all-inclusive participation is not possible.

The dynamics of the process: real world politics is not about negotiation or

interactive network among equals, but interaction faced the political power.

The effectiveness of outcomes: the negotiation process consumes substantial

resources of time and energy in order to produce a ‘lowest common denominator’

policy.

211


By taking into account these criticisms of collaborative planning, this research

identified partnerships as one of many possible instruments that would be employed

in order to achieve policy goals though collaborative efforts. This is because:

Partnerships may produce additional assets, skills and powers through synergy. It

is expected that those added values from co-operation of resources and from joint

efforts of agencies may increase effectiveness or efficiency of policy outcomes.

Partnerships are arenas for bargaining, lobbying and negotiation about purpose

and objectives so that they may lead to quicker consensus building between

partner members than is possible through other forms of public organisation.

Partnerships are cost-effective compared to other possible means of achieving the

same goals, and can be a useful tool through which to gain access to the resources

and skills of other agencies.

In recognition of the point that partnerships emerge spontaneously from the need to

progress in the practice of planning, this research intended to develop a theoretical

framework for understanding partnerships. This research defined partnership in a

wider spectrum to indicate not only urban regeneration partnerships but also social

and environmental partnerships. To develop a more reliable framework for the

partnership approach, this research essentially focuses on modes of governance to

conceptualise the partnership approach (see Figure 3.2: A Concept of Partnership,

Markets, Hierarchies and Networks, in Section 3.3.2). As a simple explanation,

partnerships possess a combination of three modes of governance. However, this

research emphasised that networks – tend to be limited within a single organisation –

can be easily developed between different organisations within a partnership

boundary.

From the arguments of collaborative planning theory, this research developed an

institutional framework for the collaborative partnership approach in delivering

integrated waterside revitalisation. This started by reviewing advantages and

limitations of collaborative planning in engaging to issues of waterside revitalisation.

Identified advantages were:

Although the waterside issues are diverse and complex, the common purpose

between waterside stakeholders can be readily built; this is because the waterside

issues are related to sustainability.

212


A certain geographical boundary, such as a river basin, helps focus on particular

issues and emphasise on area-based targets.

Discussed limitations are:

Sustainability may not stress threat or scarcity of resource loss among waterside

stakeholders, this makes difficult to generate commitment from them.

Traditional compartmental approaches to environmental planning and

management in the UK may be another obstacle to collaboration.

A possible institutional arrangement for waterside revitalisation that developed in this

research covers each stage in the life cycle of partnership: pre-partnership

collaboration; partnership creation and consolidation; partnership programme

delivery; and partnership termination or succession. As a part of this theoretical

framework that applied to the case study, this research developed a mechanism

involving local communities in partnership activities (see Figure 4.2: Involving Local

Communities, Collaborative Partnerships at Local Level, in Section 4.3.2). It

emphasised communication (information and interaction) that might lead to local

stewardship, the beginning of community involvement. Focusing on the partnership

programme delivery stage, this research suggested three key aspects of collaborative

partnerships: consensus building, facilitation and open participation. In particularly,

this research developed a mechanism of collaborative partnership service delivery

based on the three key aspects. It was illustrated in Figure 4.4: A Mechanism of

Collaborative Partnership Service Delivery (Section 4.3.3). This institutional

framework, including the two mechanisms of involving local communities and

delivering collaborative partnership service, will be revisited in this chapter, Section

8.3.3.

8.3.2 Objective Two: Real-life Context

to investigate how the theory and general principles of the

collaborative partnership approach have fared in a concrete example

of waterside revitalisation; focused on institutional arrangements and

implementation of a collaborative partnership in a particular river

basin

213


The main research stream of collaborative planning is to seek a way of making

collaborative efforts in practice by adapting theories and principles of consensus

building, conflict resolution and participatory planning. However, a common

precondition of those theories is that stakeholders are willing to participate in the

collaborative planning process to secure their resources and interests. This research

investigated a working practice of collaborative partnership when there is no obvious

tension among stakeholders that generates motivations and commitments.

The sustainability objectives of the Mersey Basin Campaign are essential to tackle a

river basin ecosystem and create a win-win strategy for wider stakeholders. Although

the sustainability issue has been widely acknowledged in the Mersey Basin, it has not

been everybody’s priority. The situation may be different in other parts of the world.

For example, a sustainable development issue may be a life-threatening priority

among stakeholders in rural areas where the local economy is solely dependant on

eco-tourism or fishing industry. The Mersey Basin is a heavily urbanised area

containing the two conurbations of Merseyside and Greater Manchester. The

sustainability issue in the Mersey Basin in the 1980s, at the time when the Campaign

was established, was not a top priority of all key stakeholders in the region to put their

extra money, time and efforts to the partnership.

The Mersey Basin Campaign developed their objectives based on the concept of

sustainability covering wider issues together in economic, environmental and social

decision-making. Although the overarching objectives have helped prevent serious

conflicts between stakeholders, these could not secure strong stakeholder participation

and commitment from them. This research found that funding resources stimulated

collaboration in implementing tasks of regional regeneration. The role of the ERDF

that was allocated to the Campaign was significant in attracting stakeholders,

especially local authorities. Besides the funding resources, the Campaign offered

other hooks to attract stakeholders: regulatory agencies saw a wider consultation

opportunity; businesses saw the potential for promoting a positive image and better

public relations; and voluntary groups saw an opportunity to strengthen their voice.

Additionally, ‘big name’ partner organisations in the public and private sectors

provided an added credibility to attract smaller groups.

The funding opportunities and credibility of the Campaign might stimulate the

regional collaboration for integrated waterside management in the Mersey Basin.

214


However, it is evident that partner organisations seemed not to be interested in

implementing the tasks of the Campaign, once initial excitement of funding

availability had declined. Therefore, the Campaign needed to develop an

understanding of collaborative approach among stakeholders and change their

attitudes towards a collaborative form of planning practice.

The six detailed case studies (Chapter 7), especially the experience of the Mersey

Estuary Management Project, showed that the role of representatives linking their

parent organisations to the partnership is fundamental for effective service delivery.

This research found that having shared ownership of the partnership among

representatives is essential to the achievement of collaborative efforts, especially

when there is no obvious stake. This is because representatives with a sense of

ownership: 1) are more likely to have a comprehensive feedback process to their

parent organisations; 2) are generally prepared to seek resources for the partnership

from their parent organisations; and 3) tend to make their colleagues aware of the

partnership throughout internal networks within their parent organisations. In order to

achieve this, the research found that the well-managed consensus building process is

fundamental. Understanding and learning are essential to enable representatives to

value and contribute to a wider vision for the whole basin rather than a narrow view

of a single organisation. Feelings of achievement are identified as another factor to

stimulate ownership among representatives.

A particular aspect of the collaborative partnership approach in focusing on

institutional arrangements and implementation of a collaborative partnership is

explored in Section 8.3.3.

8.3.3 Objective Three: Guidelines

to develop guidelines to ensure that the particular practice of

integrated waterside revitalisation is consistent with the principles of a

collaborative partnership approach

By reviewing the literature and reflecting the results of the case studies, this thesis

developed guideline to achieve effective collaborative efforts in a partnership

delivering integrated waterside revitalisation. This guideline covers each stage in the

life cycle of partnership.

215


PRE-PARTNERSHIP COLLABORATION

At this stage of establishment, a partnership needs to build common purpose and

identify key stakeholders in the area of interests. Generally speaking, building

common purpose in the field of waterside revitalisation needs to reflect the concept of

sustainable development. This is because a river basin needs an ecosystem approach

in targeting environmental, economic and social aspects and in meeting the nine

principles of waterside revitalisation (see Section 2.4.1). This research identified that

networks developed through pre-existing organisations were essential to establish a

new partnership in the area. This is because pre-existing networks may provide area-

based knowledge, experience working within partnerships and useful contacts to key

stakeholders. Additionally, as a requirement of collaborative planning, key

stakeholders in the area need to be identified at this stage. A joint fact-finding process

– stakeholders and experts working together to collect and analyse information - has

been suggested at this stage to stimulate feelings of achievement and ownership from

an early stage.

PARTNERSHIP CREATION AND CONSOLIDATION

A partnership, as an institution, needs to: 1) develop a decision-making structure; 2)

involve partner members; and 3) establish a set of objectives. The structure of the

partnership needs to reflect various aspects of waterside revitalisation. This research

found that a desirable structure for decision-making might be one that splinters into

smaller discussion groups rather than functioning as a single unit. This is because the

waterside has a considerable number of stakeholders, and larger groups in a

committee; as these may cause difficulties not only in administering but also

achieving effective communication and better working relationships across the space

they must occupy. However, the structure needs to be flexible in responding to local

circumstances of a particular river basin and to changes in its political environments.

As discussed, the waterside sustainability issues are not the top priorities among

stakeholders, it is difficult to motivate a strong commitment among stakeholders to

become involved in a collaborative partnership. Throughout this research, it has been

increasingly evident that funding availability is the most popular hook upon which to

216


attract reluctant stakeholders. This research also emphasised the need for wider

involvement including voluntary groups and the general public for a better

collaborative effort. The community involvement can be motivated through

communication (interaction and information). Awareness programmes and

community social events may stimulate the two-way communication between a

partnership and community members, and between members of the community.

In terms of institutional arrangements, the experience of the Mersey Basin Campaign

emphasised a geographically-tiered approach to allow different planning processes in

different geographical scales. The Campaign area is split into smaller catchment areas

led by independent steering groups such as the River Valley Initiatives. This enabled

to deliver the Campaign’s vision at the local level and to address the specific needs of

particular catchments. Moreover, targeting individual watercourses encourages local

community groups to contribute to their neighbourhood watercourses, and stimulates

stewardship on their waterside environments. As a collaborative partnership engages a

considerable number of stakeholders and needs to respond the changing of political

environments around them, the flexibility of the structure is also important.

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMME DELIVERY

A partnership delivers its service through member partners. It is therefore important to

recognise that effective meeting management is essential to deliver the objectives of

the partnership through member partners. A collaborative arena requires diverse

interests from individual partners to deliver its service. This research made clear that a

collaborative arena is not a place for bringing everybody together and making

everybody to have the same viewpoint and opinion. The arena is to co-ordinate

diverse interests to work to an agreed goal. Thus, in delivering its service, this

research recognised that a partnership needs different implementation processes to

tackle different problems. Some planning processes require continuity of leadership,

whilst others need bottom-up approaches. Faced with the complexity of waterside

agendas, this research developed the three key aspects of collaborative partnership in

delivering integrated waterside revitalisation: consensus building; facilitation; and

open participation.

217


Consensus building is a primary tool for implementing collaborative efforts. It

focuses on a process in which individual representatives engage in face-to-face

dialogue to seek agreement on strategies, plans, policies and actions.

Facilitation is a means of partnership working by which member partners are

engaged to deliver its services. The fundamental principle behind facilitation is to

translate the vision of partnership to its partners so as to stimulate member

organisations to identify with its objectives and take action for themselves.

Open participation is a channel for a wider range of alternatives including

different levels of participation and responsibilities outside of the formal planning

bodies. It allows wider involvement of all those interest groups willing to

contribute to various aspects of partnership activities.

These three key aspects cannot be isolated in delivering the partnership service. This

emphasises that a collaborative partnership is not only to develop consensus between

stakeholders but also, more importantly, to implement actions beyond the traditional

implementation procedure in the practice of planning. Figure 8.1 illustrates top-down

and bottom up approaches in a mechanism of a collaborative partnership service

delivery. As discussed in Figure 4.4 (A Mechanism of Collaborative Partnership

Service Delivery, Section 4.3.3), a collaborative partnership delivers its service

through member partners. A collaborative partnership has co-ordinating committees

as facilitating bodies (the Mersey Basin Campaign Centre for the Campaign and

Steering Groups for the River Valley Initiatives). A co-ordinating committee is

structured to incorporate and steer collaborative actions to deliver the partnership

services by means of not only developing and implementing strategies and plans

(strategy-oriented action) but also organising and undertaking practical projects

(project-oriented action). In this context, the three key aspects of collaborative

partnerships have been emphasised.

Consensus building engages strategy-oriented actions that are delivered through

formal memberships. Consensus building delivers the tasks of the partnership through

a policy-making process, as it can be seen in the case of the Mersey Estuary

Management Plans and its Action Plans. The implementation of these strategies can

be directly delivered through formal members of the partnership possessing statutory

powers. Consensus building may also need to develop strategies for ‘in-house

218


management’ of the partnership, such as the production of corporate plans and a

review of partnership visions and structure in responding to the change of political

environment. The process of consensus building itself transforms the attitudes of

participants through mutual understanding and learning processes.

Facilitation may involve both strategy-oriented and project-oriented actions that may

be delivered through formal and informal memberships of the partnership. Facilitation

develops strategies to encourage partners to act under the vision of the partnership

such as the Water Mark Scheme. Facilitation also implements practical projects as the

Showrick’s Bridge Project aimed at replacing the missing link in a footpath network.

This research found that facilitation could be mostly implemented as a part of a

comprehensive consensus building process. This is because an accomplished

consensus building process can: 1) build better communication and understanding

among participants; 2) open up the discussion and bring resources from all members

who participate; and 3) unlock opportunities to resolve potential conflicts that are

unlikely to be resolved in a traditional approach of planning.

Open participation engages much wider participations including informal

memberships and the general public. A collaborative partnership may need to

organise open participation events to facilitate their involvement, although open

participation projects can be also organised by member partners themselves.

219


Figure 8.0.33 Collaborative Partnership Service Delivery: Top-down and Bottom-

up

Source: Author

The Mersey Basin Campaign possesses a unique institutional framework co-

ordinating a top-down approach and a bottom-up approach. It is clear that creating

and developing a ‘sense of ownership’ of the watercourses among local communities

Coordinating Committee

Strategy-oriented Project-oriented

OpenParticipationFacilitationConsensus

Building

Member

Formal Membership Informal Membership

Collaborative Partnership

Partners

Public

StewardshipBeginning of Community Involvement

Information

Communication

Media & Education

Programmes

Newsletters, Education and Awareness Programmes, Publication, and Partners’

Advertisements

Organising Social

EventsEvents of Cleaning-up Water

courses, Guided Walks, Community BBQ Social

Events, and Family Fun Fair Events

Interaction

Active Involvement

Passive Involvement

Citizen Control, Delegated Power, and Partnership

Manipulation, Therapy, Informing, Consultation, Placation

Top-downCollaborative Partnership Service Delivery

Bottom-up

Community Participation

220


is an important task in order to encourage the local populations in the Basin to value

their waterside environments. To achieve this the Campaign has directed a great deal

of effort to enhance communication (information and interaction) with the community

through its geographically-tiered approach (top-down). This includes giving

information through media and the Campaign’s education and awareness

programmes, and stimulating interaction among individual community members by

organising social events. This may encourage community groups to cherish their local

waterside environments and become involved in Campaign activities (bottom-up).

With respect to public involvement in a collaborative partnership, a community group

may get involved in the partnership actively by means of: becoming a formal member

of the partnership to act as members in co-ordinating committees in regional or local

levels, i.e. the Campaign Council and the Steering groups in the RVIs; or becoming

informal members of the partnership in participating practical projects to improve

their local watercourses. However, not all community members want to get involved

in a decision-making process to take control for their futures and take actions that

really affect their quality of life. A community member may participate in a passive

way of involvement, for example, keeping update local news and participating a

consultation practice. This passive involvement may encourage local communities to

participate in future partnership activities such as open participation events engaging

the general public.

PARTNERSHIP TERMINATION OR SUCCESSION

There are three possible exit strategies for partnerships: complete closing down of the

partnership; continuity of partnership activities through member partners after

termination of partnership institution; and succession of the partnership as an

institution. The most important aspect of exit strategies is to develop comprehensive

networks between member partners so as to enable future collaboration, as existing

networks help establish a new partnership in the area.

221


8.3.4 Objective Four: Applicability

to judge the applicability of theory and principles to a real-life context

While great emphasis has been laid on the importance of collaboration for the

delivery of policy goals, there has been little analysis or evaluation of the applicability

of theory and principles of collaborative planning in a real-life context. The emphasis

on consensus building and conflict resolution has been particularly noticeable in the

current research stream of collaborative planning. Throughout this research,

especially in Chapters 6 and 7, it is evident that theory and principles of collaborative

planning, particularly principles of consensus building, are important for delivering

effective collaborative efforts. However, issues were raised when this research

developed an empirical framework to implement collaborative efforts in delivering

sustainable waterside revitalisation. In relation to outcomes of sustainable

development, there are a number of questions to be answered: how to measure the

achievement of collaborative efforts delivering the sustainable development goal: how

to make outcomes accountable if the outcomes of a collaborative partnership is

impossible to measure?

The Mersey Basin Campaign has developed three overarching objectives: water

quality improvement, landward regeneration and local stewardship. The water quality

objective is the only one that can be clearly measured by scientific surveys. For the

second objective, the Campaign developed supporting research evidence that

investment to improve water quality is an essential component in achieving the aim of

continued landward regeneration. This is based on the rationale that efforts at

comprehensive landward regeneration will either founder or will be only partly

realised with good water quality. However, there is no obvious tool to measure the

local stewardship. This can be seen from the example of ‘the Mersey Basin Trust vs.

the Mersey Basin Centre’ (Chapter 6, Section 6.4.2). The Trust aims to empower local

communities to achieve the sustainable development goal, although the Centre

(funding source to the Trust) needs statistical evidence of the Trust’s projects in order

to satisfy the government requirements and secure future funding from the

government.

The outcomes of collaborative efforts are not just the productions of agreed strategies

(see Table 3.1 in Section 3.3) as like a simple consensus building process or a conflict

222


resolution practice. This research found that representatives, who participate

extensively in the activities of a collaborative partnership, might see the wider

benefits of the collaborative efforts. These wider outcomes are mainly products of a

process of collaborative approach, i.e. mutual understanding, learning, reducing

conflicts and opportunities for future collaboration. However, external bodies of the

partnership or member partners who passively participate reported a narrow list of

outcomes that the partnership delivered. However, as it discussed earlier, not all of

stated objectives of the Campaign are clearly measurable. This argument leads to the

need for the further research in the field of collaborative planning.

8.4 A Collaborative Partnership Research Agenda

This research is not an attempt to solve all problems that collaborative planning faces

in practice. It provided a framework for more manageable collaborative approaches

when it engaged with weaknesses generated from a lack of motivation among

stakeholders. This section presents how the work presented in this thesis can be

extended and discusses possibilities for the future in the form of a collaborative

planning research agenda.

8.4.1 Towards Accountable Outcomes of Collaborative Efforts

The work presented in this thesis can be extended in order to provide a new enabling

framework for the analysis of outcomes of collaborative partnership that aims to

achieve sustainable development. It is now clear that individuals ‘within’ the

discourse arena can be transformed toward a collaborative way of working through

the dialogue leading to comprehensive understanding and learning. This research

showed that individuals ‘within’ the discourse arena understand the value of the

collaborative action. However, how to translate the value of the collaborative efforts

to ‘outside’ of the discourse arena? In short, we need for further studies developing a

framework measuring the collaborative efforts to prove the accountability of

collaborative outcomes to external bodies or individuals outside of the discourse

arena. This may enable much wider collaboration and much effective collaborative

service delivery in the practice of planning.

223


The experience of the Mersey Basin Campaign shows that a collaborative partnership

needs to make their outcomes accountable to their funding bodies such as central

government. This is especially problematic when the issues are related to community

action, as it can be seen in the conflict situation between the Mersey Basin Centre and

The Mersey Basin Trust. The problem caused because it is unclear whether the inputs

of time, effort and finance that the Trust requires to empower communities are

justified in terms of the outputs produced. Then, there are a number of questions

raised. What is the value of empowering community? Is it possible to present the

value of community action in a statistical form?

The value of empowering community is widely recognised and promoted, but its

economic value has rarely been explored. Community activity has often been seen as

a ‘free good’ with no accompanying costs. However, voluntary organisations need

management costs, such as recruiting, deploying, supporting and training volunteers

all require time and money. In this context, Gaskin and Dobson (Gaskin and Dobson,

1997) undertook a pilot project evaluating the economic equation that represents the

relationship between the investment by the organisation and the economic value of

volunteer activity (in estimating a ‘volunteer wage bill’). This equation was calculated

in dividing the value of volunteer activity by the volunteer management and/or

organisational running costs. Their research found that organisations yielded a higher

return were often ‘practically run themselves’, with volunteers doing a large amount

of self-management. Adapting from this, it will be possible to estimate what the

economic value of empowering community.

Figure 8.2 illustrates a hypothetical framework to evaluate the economic values of

community activity and empowerment. The economic value of community activity

can be assessed by analysing the contribution of volunteers to organisations or

communities and values it at the appropriate market wage rates. This is based on the

assumption; what would the wage bill be, if the organisation had to employ people at

current local pay rates to provide their services? As a community group or

organisation is empowered so that they can organise their own future project

themselves, the management and organisational running costs may be reduced and the

economic value of community activity may be increased. However, empowering

community is not a ‘free good’ either. This requires staff (community development

officer) time and money of a facilitating body, such as the Mersey Basin Trust. It can

224


be also argued that costs of empowering ‘hard-to-reach’ groups are higher than those

of ‘well-established’ community groups. Therefore, costs of empowering may

decrease according to the empowerment proceed.

Figure 8.34 The Value of Community Empowerment: Hypothetical Framework

Source: Author

This proposed research may conduct a number of case studies by developing a

method that analyses impact of empowerment efforts on individual community

groups. It would be possible to estimate comparable figures of the market values

analysing inputs and outputs of community organisations and comparing at the point

before and after the input of community empowerment from the facilitating body.

Although this model may provide major new insights into the economic value of

community empowerment, it should be noted that the result of empowering

community is not to be measured incidentally, but in consideration of its long-term

effects. Therefore, the time-scale of this model needs to be carefully designed.

8.4.2 Towards a Comparative Research

This thesis provided some insights regarding collaborative partnerships that aim at

delivering integrated waterside revitalisation by engaging the concept of sustainable

development. The experience of the Mersey Basin Campaign provided some valuable

lessons and suggests that may be applicable to other collaborative partnership, in

Management / organisational running costs

The value of community / volunteer activity

Costs of community empowerment

The value of community empowerment

Individual CommunityOrganisation

Process of Community Empowerment

Facilitating Body

Inputs Outputs

225


particularly relation to waterside management projects. The evidence presented here

is based on a single case study and further comparative research is required to full test

the conceptual framework that collaborative partnerships can employ to deliver their

services.

Methodological frameworks that developed in this thesis can be used for the

evaluation of other examples of integrated waterside management projects. For the

selection of case study for this proposed research, another waterside management

project that won Riverprize39can be chosen. This is because award-wining projects

may have similarities, as they are selected from the same judging categories, but they

are developed in different political circumstance in different parts of the world. This

may increase applicability of the service delivery framework for collaborative

partnerships that this thesis suggested.

8.4.3 Towards a Future Collaborative Practice

The Mersey Basin Campaign was established in the 1980s and pioneered the way of

collaborative partnership working in the North West. This thesis found that a

collaborative partnership needs to develop hooks to attract stakeholders to become

involved in partnership activity, and funding opportunities have been emphasised as

an obvious hook. It is now clear that individuals who have participated in a

collaborative process may be transformed their attitude towards collaborative efforts.

Consequently, participants develop better understanding of a partnership approach

and value the collaborative outcomes. The experience of the Mersey Basin Campaign

also showed that representatives to the Campaign were generally willing to participate

in other partnerships in future (see Section 6.4.1, quotation from William

Crookshank). Because the Campaign developed a comprehensive network in the area

and transformed the views of member partners on the partnership working, a new

partnership in the Mersey Basin area may be established without any obvious hooks

such as funding opportunities.

It may be therefore interesting to explore the formation of partnerships after the

experience of the Campaign in the area. This research agenda may be undertaken by

39 The Mersey Basin Campaign was the 1999 winner of the Riverprize in recognition of excellence in river management. This is an annual global competition that is organised as a part of International River Management Symposium in Brisbane, Australia.

226


interviewing and questionnaire survey to member representatives of the Campaign

who get also involved in other partnerships during or after serving the Campaign. The

questions may be focused on comparative experience working within the different

partnerships and impact of Campaign experience on working within other kinds of

partnerships. The result of this investigation may provide clear evidence of wider

outcomes of collaborative efforts by offering insights on long-term effects of a

collaborative partnership in the area.

8.5 Final Conclusions

How can a collaborative partnership approach as presented in contemporary planning

theories be applied to, and improve, a process of integrated waterside revitalisation in

the practice of planning? To answer this main aim of this thesis, the prior seven

chapters have investigated both the theory and the practice of collaborative

partnerships. It has been argued that the aim of this thesis has been comprehensively

achieved. The value of this research is summarised as follows.

Firstly, this thesis presumes that no realistic discussion of planning is possible without

taking political-economic and bureaucratic powers into account. Throughout the

course of this research it is clear that the ideal collaborative planning is impossible to

implement in the real-life context. This research showed how collaborative effort can

be made in the face of power. Despite the limitations of collaborative planning theory

from its idealism this research made a contribution to a mechanism for delivering

collaborative efforts under the political and bureaucratic planning practice. Although

this research explored the practice of integrated waterside revitalisation in particular,

the principles of collaborative approaches that have been suggested in this thesis can

be also applied to other forms of partnerships in different fields of planning.

Secondly, a considerable amount of earlier research that attempt to apply

collaborative planning theory to practice are focused on cases that involve obvious

tensions surround the stake, which motivate stakeholders to participate. However, this

research engaged the theory and the practice of collaborative planning with the issues

of sustainable development that cannot motivate most stakeholders to participate.

Therefore, this thesis provided a framework for collaborative approaches towards

227


sustainable development by attracting reluctant stakeholders, facilitating their actions

and accounting the collaborative outcomes.

Thirdly, by exploring various cases of integrated waterside management practice, this

research offered diverse management strategies that may useful to other collaborative

partnership in delivering integrated waterside management. Practical reflection that

discussed in this research may help those who wish to develop collaborative

approaches to integrated waterside revitalisation in the other parts of the UK or the

world.

In short, there may be a set of limitations in undertaking this research, although there

have been a great deal of attentions taken into account to overcome those limitations.

As in other inter-organisational studies, the first criticism of this research may be

around issues about the selection of interviewees for the case study. This is because

conducting interviews with internal players is essential but internal players are more

likely to protect vulnerable aspects of themselves and disguise the meanings of some

of their actions and feelings. As an attempt to overcome this argument, the author

conducted interviews with ex-employees of the Campaign as they have a

comprehensive understanding of internal aspects of the Campaign. Moreover, ex-

employees are more likely to provide precise features and critical arguments, as they

do not have direct responsibilities to the Campaign.

The second issue relates to the flexible structure of the Campaign. Since this research

started in October 1998, there has been significant structural change (the creation of

the Mersey Basin Council) in the year 2000 when the new chairperson was appointed.

This research tried to emphasise institutional arrangements both before and after

restructuring, as different structural arrangements were needed in responding different

situations. At the time of writing (at the end of 2001), the Campaign is undertaking

another structural change regarding to re-arrangement of the Mersey Basin Trust. Due

to the time-scale of this research as a PhD thesis, the case study activities ended at the

beginning of 2001.

The third issue is that there are tensions and conflicts between not only organisations

but also individuals. Dealing with politically sensitive issues limits scope of this

research at a certain level, which might not be reflected in this research.

228

Bibliography

These are references at the moment.Revise needed.

Bibliography

229

Bibliography

Allmendinger, P. (Forthcoming) Planning in a Postmodern Age, London: John Wiley.

Alt 2000 (1999) Blueprint for Action, Liverpool: Alt 2000.

Amin, A. and Graham, S. (1997) The Ordinary City. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 22, 411-429.

Amin, A. and Thrift, N. (1995) Globalisation, Institutions and Regional Development in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Armstrong, H.W. (1993) Subsidiarity and the operation of European community regional policy in Britain. Regional Studies 27, 575-606.

Arnstein, S. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of American Institute of Planners 35, 216-224.

Atkinson, R. (1999) Discourses of partnership and empowerment in contemporary British urban regeneration. Urban Studies 36, 59-72.

Bailey, N. (1994) Towards a research agenda for public-private partnerships in the 1990s. Local Economy 8, 292-306.

Bailey, N. (1995) Partnership Agencies in British Urban Policy, London: UCL Press.

Baker Associates (1997) A Method for Community Involvement in LEAPs, Environment Agency R&D Techical Report W32, The Environment Agency.

Bates, A. (1999) Mersey Basin Weekend Report, Unpublished internal report, Manchester: Mersey Basin Trust.

Benson, J.K. (1982) A Framework for Policy Analysis. In: Rogers, D., Whitten, D. and and Associates, (Eds.) Interorganizational Coordination, pp. 137-176. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press]

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M. (2001) How to Research, 2nd edn., Buckingham: Open University Press.

Blodgett, L.L. (1992) Research Notes and Communications Factors in the Instability of International Joint Ventures: An Event History Analysis. Strategic Management Journal 13, 475-481.

Boland, P. (1998) Urban Governance and Economic Development: a case study of Knowsley, Merseyside, Unpublished PhD Thesis. Department of City and Regional Planning, Cardiff Univeristy.

Boland, P. (1999) Merseyside and Objective 1 Status, 1994-1999: Implications for the Next Programming Period. Regional Studies 33, 788-792.

Borys, B. and Jemison, D.B. (1989) Hybrid Arrangements or Strategic Alliances: Theoretical Issues in Organisational Combinations. Academy of Management Review 14, 234-249.

Boyle, R. (1993) Changing Partners: the experience of urban economic policy in West Central Scotland, 1980-1990. Urban Studies 30, 309-324.

Brindley, T., Rydin, Y. and Stoker, G. (1989) Remaking planning: the politics of urban change in the Thatcher years, London: Unwin Hyman.

Brown, P. (Sep 29, 1999) Award for Mersey clean-up. The Guardian 29 September 1999 edn, 10-10.

230

Bibliography

Carlson, C. (1999) Convening. In: Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larmer, J., (Eds.) The Consensus Building Handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement, pp. 169-197. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications]

Castells, M. (1996) The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. I, The Rise of the Network Society, Cambridge MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Chavis, D.M. (1990) Sense of Community in the Urban Environment: A Catalyst for Participation and Community Development. American Journal of Community Psychology 18, 55-81.

Clegg, S. (1989) Frameworks of Power, London: Sage.

Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (2000) Research Methods in Education, 5th edn., London: Routledge.

Coulson, A. (1997) Business Partnerships and Regional Government. Policy and Politics 25, 31-38.

Countryside Commission (1970) The Planning of the Coastline. A report on a study of cosatal preservation and development in England and Wales, London: HMSO.

Creighton, J.L. (1983) Identifying public/staff identification techniques. In: Creighton, J.L., Priscoli, J.D. and Dunning, C.M., (Eds.) Public Involvement Techniques: A Reader of Ten Years Experience at the Institute for Water Resources, IWR Research Report 82-R1, Fort Belvoir: Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.]

Cross, C. and Sauvain, S. (1981) The Highways Act 1980, London: Sweet and Maxwell.

Cullingworth, J.B. and Nadin, V. (1994) Town and Country Planning in Britain, 11th edn. London: Routledge.

Daily Post (Jun 2, 1998) North West Today: Dragonflies are stars. Daily Post 2 June 1998 5-5.

Davies, H.W.E. (1998) Continuity and Change: the evolution of British planning system, 1947-97. Town Planning Review 69, 135-152.

Davis, S. and Meyer, C. (1998) Blur: The Speed of Change in the Connected Economy, Reading MA: Addison Wesley.

Dawson, M. and Eagles, L. (1999) Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly Survey 1998, Manchester: Mersey Basin Trust.

Department of the Environment (1973) A Background to Water Reorganisation in England and Wales, London: HMSO.

Department of the Environment (1982) Cleaning Up the Mersey: A Consulation Paper on Tackling Water Pollution in the Rivers and Canals of the Mersey Catchment, and Improving the Appearance and Use of their Banks, Manchester: DoE, North West Regional Office.

Department of the Environment (1995) Involving Communities in Urban and Rural Regeneration: a guide for practitioners, London: Department of the Environment.

DETR (1997) Involving Communities in Urban and Rural Regeneration: a guide for practitioners, London: DETR.

DETR (1999) Subsidiarity and Proportionality in Spatial Planning Activities in the European Union, London: DETR.

Dewar, D. and Forrester, K. (1999) Environment Action Key to Involvement. Planning 4 June 1999, 6-6.

231

Bibliography

Doyle, M. and Straus, D. (1982) How to make meetings work, New York: Jove.

Ellesmere Port Standard (Jan 28, 1999) Water quality improvements. Ellesmere Port Standard 28 January 1999

Elliott, M.P. (1999) The Role of Facilitators, Mediators, and Other Consensus Building Practitioners. In: Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larmer, J., (Eds.) The Consensus Building Handbook, pp. 199-239. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications]

England, K.V.L. (1993) Suburban Pink Collar Ghettoes. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 83, 243-271.

Environment Agency (1997) Local Environment Agency Plan, Lower Mersey, Consultation Report, Sale: Environment Agency.

Environment Agency (1999) Local Environment Agency Plan: Alt/Crossens, Consultation Report, Preston: Environment Agency.

Environment and Society Research Unit, U. (1998) Prioritising the Issues in Local Environment Agency Plans through Concensus Building with Stakeholder Groups, R&D Technical Report W114, Bristol: Environment Agency.

European Commission. The European Regional Development Fund: What is the ERDF for? http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/activity/erdf/erdf1_en.htm . 2001. Date visted: 21 November 2001. (GENERIC)Ref Type: Electronic Citation

Evans, G. and Newnham, J. (1992) The Dictionary of World Politics: a reference guide to concepts, ideas and institutions, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Fiorino, D. (1995) Making Environmental Policy, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Strategic planning for public-private partnership organisations: a review of strategy development models, paper presented to British Academy of Management, Annual Conference, September, Lancaster University. (1994)

Forester, J. (1989) Planning in the Face of Power, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Forester, J. (1993) Critical Theory, Public Policy and Planning Practice, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Forester, J. (1996) Beyond dialogue to transformative learning: how deliberative rituals encourage political judgement in community planning processes. In: Esquith, S., (Ed.) Democratic Dialogues: Theories and Practices, Poznan: University of Poznan]

Forester, J. (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Forrester, K. (1999) Renewal on Stream. Planning 30 April 1999, 15-15.

Freethy, R. (Jan 6, 1999) Nature Watch. Lancashire Evening Telegraph 6 January 1999

Garrod, G. and Willis, K. (1994) An economic estimate of the effect of a waterside location on property values. Environmental and Resource Economics 4, 209-217.

Gary, B. (1989) Collaborating Finding a Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

232

Bibliography

Gaskin, K. and Dobson, B. (1997) The Economic Equation of Volunteering: A Pilot Study. CRSP270, Loughborough: CRSP.

Glasbergen, P. (1996) From Regulatory Control to Network Management. In: Winter, G., (Ed.) European Environmental Law: A Comparative Perspective, pp. 185-200. Dartmouth: Adershot]

Glasbergen, P. (1998) Co-operative Environmental Governance: Public-Private Agreements as a Policy Strategy, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Going for Green (1999) Cleaner water brings back the kingfisher. Going for Green April 1999

Grumbine, R.E. (1994) What is Ecosystem Management? Conservation Biology 8, 27-38.

Habermas, J. (1981) Theorie des Kommunikativen Handelns, Band 1: Handlungsrationalitat und gesellschaftliche Rationalisierung, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.

Habermas, J. (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action; Volume 1: Reason and the Rationalization of Society (Translated by T. McCarthy), Cambridge: Polity Press.

Halpert, B.P. (1982) Antecedents. In: Rogers, D.L. and Whetten, D.A., (Eds.) Interorganizational Coordination: Theory, Research, and Implementation, pp. 54-72. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press]

Handley, J. and Wood, R. (1999) The Consequences of Landscape Change: Principles and Practice; Problems and Opportunities. In: Greenwood, E.F., (Ed.) Ecology and Landscape Development: A History of the Mersey Basin, pp. 243-261. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press]

Handley, J., Wood, R., Birrell, G. and Russell, N. (1998) The Relationship between Water Quality and Economic Regeneration in the Mersey Basin, A Report to North West Water, the Environment Agency and the Mersey Basin Campaign, Manchester: Manchester University.

Harding, A. (1997) Public-Private Partnerships in the UK. In: Pierre, J., (Ed.) Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experience, pp. 71-92. London: MacMillan Press]

Harfield, R. (2000) Call for rethink on urban rivers. Planning 3 March 2000, 1-2.

Hartig, J.H., Zarull, M.A., Heidtke, T.M. and Shah, H. (1998) Implementing Ecosystem-based Management: Lessons from the Great Lakes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 41, 45-75.

Hartley, P. (Mar 17, 1999) Kingfishers reign after a clean-up. Manchester Evening News 17 March 1999

Hastings, A. (1996) Unravelling the Process of 'Partnership' in Urban Regeneration Policy. Urban Studies 33, 253-268.

Haughton, G. and Whitney, D. (1989) Equal Urban Partners? The Planner 75, 9-11.

Hay, C. (1998) The tangled webs we weave: the discourse, strategy and practice of networking. In: Marsh, D., (Ed.) Comparing Policy Networks, pp. 33-51. Buckingham: Open University Press]

Hayek, K. (1945) The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review 35, 519-530.

Healey, P. (1992a) A Planner's day: knowledge and action in communicative practice. Journal of the American Planning Association 58, 9-20.

233

Bibliography

Healey, P. (1992b) An Institutional Model of the Development Process. Journal of Property Research 9, 33-44.

Healey, P. (1993) Planning Through Debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. In: Fischer, F. and Forester, J., (Eds.) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, London: UCL Press]

Healey, P. (1994) Strategic spatial planning as a process of argumentation, OP23, Centre for Architecture and Planning Research, Perth, Western Australia: Curtin University.

Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative Planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies, Hong Kong: MacMillan.

Healey, P. (1998a) Building Institutional Capacity through Collaborative Approaches to Urban Planning. Environment and Planning A 30, 1531-1546.

Healey, P. (1998b) Collaborative Planning in a Stakeholder Society. Town Planning Review 69, 1-22.

Healey, P., Khakee, A., Motte, A. and Needham, B. (1997) Making Strategic Spatial Plans: Innovation in Europe, London: UCL Press.

Heathcote, I.W. (1998) Integrated Watershed Management: Principles and Practice, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Heclo, H. (1978) Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment. In: King, A., (Ed.) The New American Political System, pp. 87-124. Washington, DC: American Enterprise]

Hegarty, K. (Mar 20, 1999) Kingfisher sightings are on the increase. Lancashire Evening Post 20 March 1999

Held, D. (1987) Models of Democracy, Cambridge: Polity.

Hind, V. (1995) Kingfisher and Dragonfly/Damselfly Survey 1995, Manchester: Mersey Basin Trust.

House of Commons, E.C. (1983) The Problems of Management of Urban Renewal, London: HMSO.

Howie, J. (Jan 8, 1999) In the country: Mersey Basin Campaign reveals an increase in kingfisher sightings. Chester Chronicle 8 January 1999 7-7.

Hutchinson, J. (1995) Can Partnerships Which Fail Succeed? The Case of City Challenge. Local Government Policy Making 22, 41-51.

Innes, J.E. (1998) Information in Communicative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association Winter, 52-63.

Innes, J.E. (1999a) Evaluating Consensus Building. In: Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larmer, J., (Eds.) The Consensus Building Handbook, pp. 631-675. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publication]

Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (1999b) Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems: a framework for evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65, 412-423.

Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (1999c) Consensus Building as Role Playing and Bricolage: toward a theory of collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65, 9-26.

Innes, J.E. and Booher, D.E. (2000) Metropolitan Development as a Complex System: A New Approach to Sustainability. In: Hull, A., (Ed.) Shaping Places,

234

Bibliography

Planning Strategies in Conflict: the case of regional transportation planning in the bay area, Paper presented to the 13th Congress of the Association of European Schools of Planning, Bergen, Norway, 7-11 July. (1999)

Innes, J.E., Gruber, J., Thompson, R. and Neuman, M. (1994) Coordinating Growth and Environmental Management through Consensus-building: Report to the California Policy Seminar, Berkeley: University of California.

Jaques, E. (1991) In Praise of Hierarchy. In: Thompson, G., Frances, J., Levacic, R. and Mitchell, J., (Eds.) Markets, Hierarchies and Networks: the coordination of social life, pp. 108-118. London: Sage]

Jessop, R. (1995) The Regulation Approach, Governance and Post-Fordism: Alternative Perspectives on Economic and Political Change. Economy and Society 24, 307-333.

Johnston, B. (1999) Ask your neighbour. Planning 5 Feburary 1999, 13-13.

Jones, P.D. (2000) The Mersey Estuary - Back from the Dead?, Solving a 150-Year Old Problem. J.CIWEM 14, 124-130.

Kaner, S. (1996) Facilitator's guide to participatory decision-making, Philadelphia: New Society.

Keating, M. (1991) Comparative Urban Politics, Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

Kickert, W., Klijn, E.H. and Koppenjan, J. (1997) Managing Complex Networks: strategies for the public sector, London: Sage.

Kidd, S. and Shaw, D. (2000) The Mersey Basin Campaign and Its River Valley Initiatives: An Appropriate Model for the Management of Rivers? Local Environment 5, 191-209.

Kidd, S., Shaw, D., Delaney, A. and Hibbitt, K. (1997) The Mersey Basin Campaign: River Valley Initiatives, 37 edn. Liverpool: University of Liverpool.

Kim, J.S. (1998) Urban Waterfront Regeneration: What factors contribute to the success of waterfront regeneraiton?, Thesis for Master of Civic Design. The University of Liverpool. Master of Civic Design.

Jul 9, 1999. Revitalising the Waterside in a Community Context: the experience of the Mersey Basin Campaign, paper presented at 13th AESOP congress, Bergen, July 1999. Association of European Schools of Planning. (1999)

Kim, J.S. and Batey, P.W.J. (2000) A Collaborative Partnership for Integrated Estuary Management: The Mersey Strategy, North West England. International Journal of Public-Private Partnerships

A Collaborative Partnership Approach to Integrated Waterside Revitalisation: The experience of the Mersey Basin Campaign, paper presented in the First World Planning Schools Congress, Shanghai, China, 11th-15th July. Shanghai: Tongji University. (2001)

Knowles, M. (1997) Towards an Action Plan, Unpublished Internal Report. Liverpool: Mersey Strategy.

Kooiman, J. (1993a) Governance and Governability: Using Complexity, Dynamics and Diversity. In: Kooiman, J., (Ed.) Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions, pp. 35-48. London: Sage]

Kooiman, J. (1993b) Social-Political Governance: Introduction. In: Kooiman, J., (Ed.) Modern Governance: New Government-Social Interactions, pp. 1-6. London: Sage]

235

Bibliography

Krut, R. and Gleckman, H. (1998) ISO 14001: A Missed Opportunity for Sustainable Global Industrial Development, London: Earthscan.

Lane, T. (1997) Liverpool: City of the Sea, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Law, C. (1992) Property-led Urban Regeneration in Inner Manchester. In: Healey, P., O'Toole, M. and Usher, D., (Eds.) Rebuilding the City, pp. 60-76. London: E & FN Spon]

Lawless, P. (1989) Britain's Inner Cities, London: Paul Chapman.

Lawless, P. (1991) Public-private sector partnerships in the United Kingdom, Sheffield: Sheffield City Polytechnic.

Laws, D. (1999) Representation of Stakeholding Interests. In: Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larmer, J., (Eds.) The Consensus Building Handbook: A comprehensive guide to reaching agreement, pp. 241-285. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications]

Leftwich, A. (1994) Governance, the State and the Politics of Development. Development and Change 25, 363-386.

Lloyd, P. and Meegan, R. (1996) Contested Governance: European Exposure in the English Regions. In: Alden, J. and Boland, P., (Eds.) Regional Development Strategies: A European Perspective, pp. 55-85. London: Regional Studies Association]

London Rivers Association (2000) Putting Rivers on the Map: Blue Belt and the Future of Urban Rivers, London: London Rivers Association.

Lowndes, V., Nanton, P., McCabe, A. and Skelcher, C. (1997) Networks, Partnerships and Urban Regeneration. Local Economy 11, 333-342.

Lowndes, V. and Skelcher, C. (1998) The Dynamics of Multi-organizational Partnerships: an analysis of changing modes of governance. Public Administration 76, 313-333.

MacKenzie, S.H. (1996) Integrated Resource Planning and Management: The Ecosystem Approach in the Great Lakes Basin, Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

MacKintosh, M. (1992) Partnership: Issues of Policy and Negotiation. Local Economy 7, 210-224.

March, J. and Olsen, J. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organisational Basis of Politics, New York: Free Press.

Martin, S. and Pearce, G. (1994) The Impact of 'Europe' on Local Government: Regional Partnerships in Local Economic Development. In: Dunleavy, P. and Stanyer, J., (Eds.) Contemporary Political Studies, Vol. 2, pp. 962-972. Belfast: Political Studies Association]

Maybury, J. (1998) Exit strategies and urban regeneration initiatives, Unpublished Master Dissertation. University of Liverpool. Master of Civic Design.

McArthur, A. (1993) Community Partnership: A Formula for Neighbourhood Regeneration in the 1990s? Community Development Journal 28, 305-305.

Meadowcroft, J. (1998) Co-operative Management Regimes: A way forward? In: Glasbergen, P., (Ed.) Co-operative Environmental Governance: Public-Private Agreements as a Policy Strategy, pp. 21-42. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers]

Mersey Basin Campaign (1993) The Mersey Basin Campaign. Campaigner Summer 1993 4-5. Mersey Basin Trust.

236

Bibliography

Mersey Basin Campaign (1997) Building a Healthier Economy through a Cleaner Environment: Mid Term Report, Manchester: Mersey Basin Campaign.

Mersey Basin Campaign (1998) Alt 2000 hails Showricks Bridge success. Campaigner (Summer 1998):1-1. Mersey Basin Trust. Summer 1998.

Mersey Basin Campaign (1999) 'Water Mark' for Waterside Businesses. Campaigner Spring 1999 edn, 6-6. Mersey Basin Campaign.

Mersey Basin Campaign (1999) Second survey predicts more sightings. The Campaigner (Winter 98/99):6-6. Mersey Basin Campaign. Winter 98/99.

Mersey Basin Campaign (2000a) International Crown for the Campaign: the Inaugural Thiess Environmental Services Riverprize. The Campaigner January 2000 edn, 7-7. Mersey Basin Trust.

Mersey Basin Campaign (2000b) Mersey Basin Campaign Corporate Plan 2000/01, Manchester: Mersey Basin Campaign.

Mersey Basin Campaign (2000c) Progress Report: 1985-2000, Manchester: Mersey Basin Campaign.

Mersey Basin Campaign (2001a) Businesses make their Water Mark. Campaigner January 2001 edn, 4-5. Mersey Basin Trust.

Mersey Basin Campaign. Pledge Groups. http://www.merseybasin.org.uk/regeneration/pledge-group/index.htm . 12-3-2001. 12-3-2001. (GENERIC)Ref Type: Electronic Citation

Mersey Basin Trust (1999) Mersey Basin Trust: Annual Review 1998-1999, Manchester: Mersey Basin Trust.

Mersey Basin Trust (2000) Annual Review 1999-2000, Manchester: Mersey Basin Trust.

Mersey Strategy (1998) Mersey Estuary Action Programme, Liverpool: Mersey Strategy.

Mersey Strategy (2000a) Making the Most of the Mersey: A Leisure Guide to Your Estuary, Liverpool: Mersey Strategy.

Mersey Strategy (2000b) Mersey Estuary Action Programme (Draft), Liverpool: Mersey Strategy.

Merseyside Socialist Research Group (1980) Merseyside in Crisis, Manchester: Manchester Free Press.

Muir, T. and Rance, B. (1995) Collaborative Practice in the Built Environment, London: E & FN Spon.

Mulford, C.L. and Rogers, D.L. (1982) Definitions and Models. In: Rogers, D.L. and Whetten, D.A., (Eds.) Interorganizational Coordination: Theory, Research, and Implementation, pp. 9-31. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press]

National Rivers Authority (1991) The Quality of Rivers, Canals and Estuaries in England and Wales, Water Quality Series Report No. 4, Bristol: NRA.

National Rivers Authority (1993) National Rivers Authority Strategy (8-part series encompassing water quality, water resources, flood defence, fisheries, conservation, recreation, navigation, research and development), Bristol: National Rivers Authority Corporate Planning Branch.

237

Bibliography

Nevin, E. (1990) The Economics of Europe, Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Newman, P. and Verpraet, G. (1999) The Impacts of Partnership on Urban Governance: Conclusions from Recent European Reseach. Regional Studies 33, 487-491.

Newson, M. (1992) Land, Water and Development: river basin systems and their sustainable management, London: Routledge.

North West Partnership/North West Regional Association (1996) Sustainable Regional Economic Strategy for North West England , Wigan: NWRA.

O'Toole, M. and Usher, D. (1992) Editorial. In: Healey, P., Davoudi, S., O'Toole, M., Tavsanoglu, S. and Usher, D., (Eds.) Rebuilding the City: property-led urban regeneration, pp. 215-222. London: E & FN Spon]

Oliver, C. (1990) Determinants of Interorganizational Relationships: Integration and Future Directions. Academy of Management Review 15, 241-265.

Osborne, D. and Gaebler, T. (1992) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is Transforming the Public Sector , Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: the political economy of institutions and decisions, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Owen, S. (1998) Managing for Sustainability. In: Schnurr, J. and Holtz, S., (Eds.) The Cornerstone of Development: Integrating Environmental, Social and Economic Policies, pp. 117-147. Ottawa: International Development Research Center]

Painter, C. and with Clarence, E. (2001) UK Local Action Zones and Changing Urban Governance. Urban Studies 38, 1215-1232.

Parker, D.J. and Penning-Rowsell, E.C. (1980) Water Planning in Britain, London: George Allen & Unwin.

Paton, R. and Emerson, T. (1988) "Top-down" and "Bottom-up": Goodbye to all that? Local Economy 3, 159-168.

Pearsall, J. (1998) The New Oxford Dictionary of English, Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Peters, B.G. (1997) 'With a Little Help From Our Friends': Public-Private Partnerships as Institutions and Instruments. In: Pierre, J., (Ed.) Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experience, pp. 11-33. London: MacMillan Press]

Powell, W. (1991) Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization. In: Thompson, G., Frances, J., Levacic, R. and Mitchell, J., (Eds.) Markets, Hierarchies and Networks: the coordination of social life, pp. 265-276. London: SAGE]

Pringle, J., Leuteritz, K. J., and Fitzgerald, M. ISO 14001: A Discussion of Implications for Pollution Prevention, ISO 14000 Working Group White Paper. National Pollution Prevention Roundtable . 1-28-1998. National Pollution Prevention Roundtable. 11-20-2000. (GENERIC)Ref Type: Electronic Citation

Provan, K.G. (1982) Interorganizational Linkages and Influence over Decision Making. Academy of Management Journal 25, 443-451.

Rabe, B.G. (1986) Fragmentation and Integration in State Environmental Management, Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation.

238

Bibliography

Rabe, B.G. (1988) The Politics of Environmental Dispute Resolution. Policy Studies Journal 16, 565-601.

Rees, J. (1990) Natural Resources, Methuen.

Report of the Commission for Social Justice (1994) Social Justice: Strategies for National Renewal, London: Vintage.

Reporter South Manchester (Mar 18, 1999) River wildlife on the up. Reporter South Manchester 18 March 1999 edn, 942 1-1.

On the Complementarity of Discourse and Power in Planning, paper presented in the Association of European Schools of Planning, Bergen, Norway July. Bergen: University of Bergen. (1999)

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1991) Policy Networks and Sub-central Government. In: Thompson, G., Frances, J., Levacic, R. and Mitchell, J., (Eds.) Markets, Hierarchies and Networks: The coordination of social life, pp. 203-214. London: Sage]

Roberts, P., Hart, T. and Thomas, K. (1993) Europe: A Handbook for Local Authorities, Manchester: CLES.

Robson, B. (1988) Those Inner Cities, Oxford: Clarendon.

Rothenbuhler, E.W. (1991) The Process of Community Involvement. Communication Monographs 58, 63-77.

Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront (1990) Watershed, Interim Report August 1990, Toronto: Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront.

RTPI (1994) The Impact of the European Community on Land Use Planning in the United Kingdom, London: Royal Town Planning Institute.

RTPI (1998) Planning in Partnership: A guide for planners, London: Royal Town Planning Institute Services Ltd.

Rydin, Y. (1998) Urban and Environmental Planning in the UK, London: Macmillan.

Schermerhorn, J.R. (1975) Determinants of Interorganizational Cooperation. Academy of Management Journal 18, 846-856.

Schmidt, S.M. and Kochan, T.A. (1986) Conflict: Toward Conceptual Clarity. Administrative Science Quarterly 17, 359-369.

Schramm, G. (1980) Integrated River Basin Planning in a Holistic Universe. Natural Resources Journal 20, 787-805.

Schramm, W. (1971) Notes on case studies of instructional media projects. Working paper, Washington, DC: The Academy for Educational Development.

Schwarz, R.M. (1994) The Skilled Facilitator: Practical wisdom for developing effective groups, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Selman, P. and Parker, J. (1997) Citizenship, civicness and social capital in Local Agenda 21. Local Environment 2, 171-184.

Shields, R. (1995) A guide to urban representations and what to do about it: alternative traditions in urban theory. In: King, A., (Ed.) Re-presenting the city: ethnicity, capital and culture in the twenty-first century metropolis, pp. 227-252. London: Macmillan]

239

Bibliography

Slocombe, D.S. (1993) Implementing Ecosystem-Based Management. Bioscience 43, 612-622.

Solesbury, W. (1990) Property Development and Urban Regeneration. In: Healey, P. and Nabarro, R., (Eds.) Land and Property Development in a Changing Context, Aldershot: Gower]

Sparks, R.E. (1995) Need for Ecosystem Management of Large Rivers and Their Floodplains. Bioscience 45, 168-182.

SPNW Joint Planning Team (1973) Strategic Plan for the North West, London: HMSO.

Stockport Times (Jan 7, 1999) The kingfisher returns. Stockport Times 1 July 1999 edn, edn

Stoker, G. (1997) Public-Private Partnerships and Urban Governance. In: Pierre, J., (Ed.) Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experience, pp. 34-51. London: Macmillan Press]

Straus, D.A. (1999a) Designing a Consensus Building Process using a Graphic Road Map. In: Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larmer, J., (Eds.) The Consensus Building Handbook, pp. 137-168. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications]

Straus, D.A. (1999b) Managing Meetings to Build Consensus. In: Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larmer, J., (Eds.) The Consensus Building Handbook: a comprehensive guide to reaching agreement, pp. 287-323. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications]

Sullivan, H. and Lowndes, V. (1996) City Challenge Succession Strategies: governance through partnership, Unpublished consultancy report, Birmingham: INLOGOV.

Susskind, L. (1999a) An Alternative to Robert's Rules of Order for Groups, Organizations, and Ad Hoc Assemblies that Want to Operate by Consensus. In: Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larmer, J., (Eds.) The Consensus Building Hanbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement, pp. 3-57. Thousamd Oaks, CA: Sage Publications]

Susskind, L., McKearnan, S. and Thomas-Larmer, J. (1999b) The Consensus Building Handbook, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tewdwr-Jones, M. and Allmendinger, P. (1998) Deconstructing Communicative Rationality: a critique of Habermasian collaborative planning. Environment and Planning A 30, 1975-1989.

Thomas-Larmer, J. (1998) Getting reluctant stakeholders to the table: experienced mediators talk it over with Concensus. Consensus July 1998 edn, 39 5-6. the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program.

Thompson, G., Frances, J., Levacic, R. and Mitchell, J. (1991) Markets, Hierarchies and Networks: the coordination of social life, London: SAGE.

4-6-0. Involving the Public in Urban Watercourse Restoration and Rehabilitation, Paper presented at the River Restoration Centre Annual Workshop, April 6-7 2000, Britannia Hotel, Manchester. Manchester: The River Restoration Centre. (2000)

University of Liverpool Study Team (1995) Mersey Estuary Management Plan: a strategic policy framework, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Ward, M. and Watson, S. (1997) Here to Stay: A public policy framework for community-based regeneration, London: The Development Trusts Association.

Water Watch Lee, M., (Ed.) (2000) Water Mark Pilot Award Scheme Review: February to November 1999, Unpublished Internal Report. Manchester: Mersey Basin Campaign.

WCED, W.C.o.E.a.D. (1987) Our Common Future , Oxford: Oxford University Press.

240

Bibliography

Weiss, J.A. (1987) Pathways to Cooperation among Public Agencies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 7, 94-117.

Westley, F. (1995) Governing Design: The management of social systems and ecosystems management. In: Gunderson, L., Holling, C.S. and Light, S., (Eds.) Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions, pp. 391-427. New York: Columbia University Press]

Williams, R.H. (1996) European Union Spatial Policy and Planning, London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Wood, R., Handley, J. and Kidd, S. (1999) Sustainable Development and Institutional Design: The example of the Mersey Basin Campaign. Journal of Environmentsl Planning and Management 42, 341-354.

Woodside, K. (1986) Policy Instruments and the Study of Public Policy. Canadian Journal of Political Science 19, 775-793.

Worpole, K. (1999) Regenerating Communities , Birmingham: Groundwork.

Yaffee, S.L., Phillips, A.F., Frentz, I.C., Hardy, P.W., Maleki, S.M. and Thorpe, B.E. (1996) Ecosystem Management in the United States: An Assessment of Current Experience, Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Yin, R.K. (1994) Case Study Research, Design & Methods, 2nd edn., London: Sage.

Young, S. (1996) Promoting Participation and Community-based Partnerships in the Context of Local Agenda 21: A Report for Practitioners, Manchester: University of Manchester.

241

Appendix One: Case Study Activity

Appendix One:

Case Study Activity

242


1. Interviews

Initial Interviews

David Neale (Alt 2000, Project Officer)- 9th February 1999

Peter Batey (Alt 2000, Chair of the Steering Group)- 23rd February 1999

Gill Maltby (Sankey NOW, Project Officer)- 19th February 1999

Sibongile Pradhan (Mersey Basin Trust, Community Officer)- 26th February 1999 and

4th September 1999

Mark Turner (Mersey Basin Campaign, RVIs Manager)- 26th February 1999

Tony Jones (Mersey Basin Trust, Executive Director)- 20th February 1999

Jeff Hinchcliffe (Mersey Basin Administration Ltd., Executive Director)- 26th March

1999

Second Interviews

Mark Turner (Mersey Basin Campaign, Deputy Chief Executive) – 6 June 2000

Louise Hopkins (Mersey Basin Campaign,) – 13 June 2000

Caroline Downey (Mersey Basin Trust, Deputy Chief Executive) – 13 June 2000

Peter Wilson (Government of the North West) – 23 June 2000

Peter Walton – (Mersey Basin Unit, Former Head of the Mersey Basin Unit) – 26 July

2000

Tony Jones (Heritage Lottery Fund, Former Deputy Chief Executive of The Mersey

Basin Trust) – 15 August 2000

Jeff Hinchcliffe (Mersey Basin Campaign, Chief Executive of the Mersey Basin

Campaign)- 28 November 2001 (Telephone Interview)

2. Meetings and Events

Alt 2000 RVI Steering Group Meeting- 22nd January 1999

243


Alt 2000 Spring Tide Spectacular- 20th February 1999

Alt 2000 Day in Part of Country Fair at Croxteth Country Park- 18th July 1999

Stream Care Clean-up Event- 6th March 1999

Groundwork North West Conference- 5th March 1999

Sankey NOW RVI Steering Group Meeting- 8th April 1999

The 6th Mersey Basin Campaign Conference- 19th May 1999

Presented a paper, ‘Revitalising the Waterside in a Community Context: the

experience of the Mersey Basin Campaign’, in the 13th AESOP Congress, Bergen,

Norway- 7th-11th July 1999

The Into The Blue Conference, Sustainable Urban Watercourses For The 21st Century,

which organised by the Urban Wildlife Partnership and the Mersey Basin Trust- 3rd-4th

September 1999

A steering committee of Sankey Canal Restoration Society- 14th October 1999

The 9th Mersey Basin Trust Annual General Meeting- 16th October 1999

Research Discussion with Dr. Laura McAllister in LIPAM- 9th November 1999

Mersey Basin Councils- 4th April 2000 and 19th June 2000

RVI Co-ordinators Meeting- 15th March 2000

River Restoration Centre Workshop– 6 April 2000

Alt 2000 Annual Meeting– 10 March 2000

National Seminar, Building Partnership– 1 June 2000

The 7th Mersey Basin Campaign Conference – 7 November 2000

Six Case Studies

1-a. Mersey Estuary Project

244


Steering Group Representatives

Peter Batey (Univ. of Liverpool)

John Entwistle (Wirral MBC) – 24 May 2000

William Crookshank (Environment Agency) – 5 June 2000

Stuart Roberts (Cheshire County Council) – 9 June 2000

Louise Hopkins (Mersey Basin Campaign) – 13 June 2000

Andrew Pannell (Halton Borough Council) – 16 June 2000

Ceri Jones (Sefton MBC) – 16 June 2000

Shanthi Rasaratham (North West Water)

User of the MEMP

Kevin Curran (Liverpool City Council) – 10 October 2000

Meeting Observation

Mersey Estuary Forum (annual conference) – 16 June 2000

Countryside Exchange Programme (three-day seminar) – 10 October 2000

1-b. Manifesto Pledge Groups

Mark Turner (Mersey Basin Campaign, Deputy Chief Executive) – 6 June 2000

Louise Hopkins (Mersey Basin Campaign) – 13 June 2000


Manifesto Pledge Group 7 (RVIs), the Mersey Basin Campaign- 29th September 1999

2-a. Water Mark

Andrew Coombe (Water Watch) – 8 June 2000

245


Mary Lee (Water Watch) – 8 June 2000

Sarah Lester (Dawen RVI, Project Officer) – 19 July 2000

Steven Beesley (REEL RVI, Co-ordinator) – 19 July 2000

Judy Yacoub (CED Partnership) – 19 July 2000

Water Mark Procession Meeting – 19 July 2000

Site Visit to Water Mark award business, B&Q Nelson and Blackburn – 19 July 2000

2-b. Showricks Bridge Project

Gwen White (North Liverpool Partnership) – 19 June 2000

Rodney Fletcher (R.A) – Need to hunt (phone number is in file)

Peter Batey

3-a. Mersey Basin Weekends

Carole Lindberg (North West Water, Public Relation Manager) – 9 October 1999

Ann Bates (Mersey Basin Trust, Mersey Basin Weekend Organiser)– 10 October

1999

Colin Greenall (Sankey Canal Restoration Society, Committee Member) – 10 October

1999


Open Day at North West Water Waste Treatment Works, Warrington, the Mersey

Basin Weekend Event- 8th October 1999

Sankey Canal Clean Up (St. Helens Ranger Service and Sankey Canal Restoration

Society), the Mersey Basin Weekend Event - 9th October 1999

246


3-b. Kingfisher Surveys

Lucie Eagle (Mersey Basin Campaign, Student Placement) – 8 June 2000

247

Appendix Two: Analysis of the Mersey Basin Weekends

Appendix Two:

Analysis of The Mersey Basin Weekends

248


Participations to the Mersey Basin Weekends: Community-based Organisations

Organisation Description of Activities

Category 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

All Saints Youth Club Tree, bulb planting Env. (Habitat man.)

1

Avanley Conservation Society Pondlife (Wirral & C Badger Group)

Edu (Public) 0.5

Alvanley Parish Council Footpath clearance Env. (Physical) 4Atherton Environmental Projects (5 Joint)*

Clean up canal Env. (Clean up)

0.2

Atherton Environmental Projects

Clean up of Colliers Env. (Clean up)

1(F) 1

Atherton Heritage Society Clean up Env. (Clean up)

1

Bacup Duck of Edinburgh Award

Clean, planting (Grwk Rossendale)

Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5

Barrowford Parish Council Renovation of footpath Env. (Physical) 2(F) 1(F)Birch Community Centre Clean up Env. (Clean

up)1(F)

Birchfields Green Action Group Gore Brook Clean up and planting

Env. (Habitat man.)

1

Birchfields Green Action Group Gore Brook Clean up Env. (Clean up)

1(F) 1(F)

Blackbook Conservation Society

Walk (Whaley B A Society)

Rec. (Walk) 0.5*3

Bollin Valley Project Inspect NWW WWTW Other 1Bollin Valley Project Pollution inspect Other 1Bolton Prince’s Trust (Croal Environmental clean up Env. (Clean 0.5

249


Wardens) up)Bolton & District Anglers Association

Teaching angling to children

Rec. (Angling) 1

Bolton Watch Club Art with natural materials Rec. (Event) 1Bolton Wildlife Project Wetland management Env. (Habitat

man.)1

Bolton Wildlife Project Clean up, planting (Captain’s C.)

Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5

Brotherod Playscheme Clean up Env. (Clean up)

2(F)

Burnage Community Park Management Group

Clean up Env. (Clean up)

4

Bury Canoe and Kayak Club Canoeing (Burrs Activity Centre)

Rec. (Water Sports)

0.5*2

Burrs Activity Centre Ltd. (Bury Canoe)

Canoeing (Bury Canoe Club)

Rec. (Water Sports)

0.5*2

Captain’s Clough Residents Association

Clean up, planting (Bolton W. P.)

Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5

Chesham Fold Tenants & Residents Association


1

Clayton-le-Moors with Altham Prospects

Habitat management Env, (Habitat man.)

1(F)

Cloverhill Residents Action Group

Clean up of the river Env. (Clean up)

2 2 2

Cheadle Angling Club Clean up River Mersey Env. (Clean up)

1 (F)

Cheshire Landscape Trust Tree dressing (Frodsham Town C.)

Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5(F)

Croal Irwell Valley Wardens Environmental Clean up Env. (Clean 0.5

250


(Bolton P T) up)Cronkshaw Fold Farme Study Centre

Fencing and planting Env. (Physical) 2(F)

Crosby Hall Educational Trust (Bishop Scl)

Pond clean up and dipping Env. (Clean up)

0.5(F)

Crow Wood Conservationist Clean up Env. (Clean up)

4(F)

Cycle Stockport Water quality survey Env. (Water Test)

1

Deeside Park Conservation Trust

Clean up of Shotwick brook

Env. (Clean up)

1(F)

Dry Stone Walling Association Cheshire

Practice event at Hard Time Farm

Rec. (Event) 1 1

East Lancashire Cub Scouts Clean up local environment Env. (Clean up)

2

East Manchester Community Boat Project

Clean up and build access point

Env. (Physical) 2(F)

Eddisbury Artists (Frodsham W C Group)

Art exhibition Rec. (Event) 0.5*3

Elton Sailing Club Clean up reservoir Env. (Clean up)

1

Formby Residents (Alt 2000) Clean up and plating Env. (Multiple) 0.5Friends of Blackleach Improve access and clean

upEnv. (Physical) 1(F)

Friends of Court Hey Park Planting wild flowers Env. (Habitat man.)

1(F)

Friends of Cronkshaw Fold Water power boat demonstration

Rec. (Event) 1(F)

Friends of Dean Wood Footpath improvement Env. (Physical) 1(F)

251


Friends of Happy Valley Planting Env. (Habitat man.)

2(F)

Friends of Happy Valley Variety of environmental tasks

Multiple 2(F)

Friends of Healey Dell Clean up and BBQ Multiple (Clean up)

1 1 1

Friends of Owley Wood Physical works Env. (Physical) 2Friends of Owley Wood Planting wild flowers Env. (Habitat

man.)1

Friends of Parrswood (Parrswood R Trust)

Fair and open day Rec. (Event) 0.5

Friends of Prestwich Forest Park (BTCV)

Tree Planting Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5

Friends of Prestwich Forest Park (BTCV)


0.5

Friends of the Valley Oaken stream clean up Env. (Clean up)

2

Friends of Woolston Park (Warrington R.)

History study Rec. (Event) 0.5(F)

Friends of Woolston Park (Warrington R.)

Reed harvest Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5

Frodsham Wildlife Conservation Group

Art exhibition (Eddisbury Art., 99)

Rec. (Event) 1 0.5*3

Frodsham Wildlife Conservation Group

Walk (Frodsham Town Council)

Rec. (Walk) 0.5*2

Gower Hey Wood Conservation Group

Stream clean up Env. (Clean up)

1


Autumn clean up Env. (Clean up)

1

252



Enhancing flood damaged area

Env. (Habitat man.)

1(F) 1

Granby Toxteth Activity Club Building garden Env. (Habitat man.)

2

Gypsy Brook Tenants & Residents Association

Clean up Env. (Clane up)

1

Halton &Warrington Midweek Group

Improve local habitat (BTCV)

Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5

Hayfield Civic Trust (Derbyshire Ser.)


0.5(F)

Heaton Park Wardens Clean up Dell area Env. (Clean up)

1

Heaton Park Wardens Fun Fishing Session Rec. (Angling) 1High Peak RSPB Members Group

Bird Watch (Stockport YOC, RSPB)

Rec. (Event) 0.33

Hinsford Town Junior Football Club

Canal trip (Inland W. Association)

Rec. (Event) 0.5

Hollingworth Lake Wardens Environment work (Rochdale PTV)

Multiple 0.5

Hollins Conservation Group Seed collection Env. (Habitat man.)

1

Huddersfield Canal Society Ltd Canal restoration work Env. (Physical) 2(F) 1(F)Inland Waterways Association Canal trip (Hinsford

Football Club)Rec. (Event) 0.5

Inland Waterways Association Clean up canal Env. (Clean up)

1(F)

Inland Waterways Association (5 joint)*

Clean up canal Env. (Clean up)

0.2

Leigh and Lowton Sailing Club Sailing race for the Rec. (Water 1

253


disabled Sprots)Lion Salt Works Trust (Weaver RVI)

Historical evening Rec. (Event) 1

Littleborough Action Group A range of environment projects

Env. (Multiple) 3(F)

Littleborough Civic Trust (Groundwork)

Repair of steps and walkpath (F)

Env. (Physical) 0.5*4

Littleborough Civic Trust Cleaning and planting Env. (Habitat man.)

1

Liverpool Sailing Club Clean up of club area Env. (Clean up)

3 1(F)

Lomeshaye Marsh Project (N &C College)


0.5*3

Lomeshaye Marsh Project (N &C College)

Wetland management Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5

Manchester IWA (5 joint)* Clean up canal Env. (Clean up)

0.2

Manchester IWA (Worsely Cruising Club)

Clean up canal and towpath Env. (Clean up)

0.5*2

Manchester Nation Trust Volunteers

Restoring nature area Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5(F)


Erosion control, bridge rebuilding



Pond reclamation work Env. (Habitat man.)

1(F)

Manchester Prince’s Trust Volunteers

Access (Man. Leisure Service)


Manchester, Bolton and Bury Canal Society

Guided walking event Rec. (Walk) 1 1

254


Matthew Moss Youth & Community Group

Fun day event at canalside Rec. (Event) 1

Merseyside Cub Scouts Clean up Env. (Clean up)

1

Milnrow and Newhey Riverwatch

Social event Rec. (Event) 1


Walk along Beal Rec. (Walk) 1


Clean up the river Beal Env. (Clean up)

1

Mill Hill St Peter’s Scouts Clean up at Mill Hill Bridge Street

Env. (Clean up)

1

Moore Nature Reserve (BTCV) Learning craft skill Rec. (Event) 0.5*3Moore Nature Reserve Walk (Warrington Ranger

Service)Rec. (Walk) 0.5

Naden Valley Conservation Group


1 1

North West Ecological Trust Access improvement Env. (Physical) 1(F)North West Ecological Trust Construction of a dam Env. (Physical) 1North West Ecological Trust Planting water plants Env. (Habitat

man.)2(F)

Oakwood High Youth Club Sailing or canoeing for the disabled

Rec. (Water Sports)

1(F) 1(F) 1(F)

Offerton Community Council Clean up stream and garden Env. (Clean up)

1 1 1

Offerton Community Council Clean up and rebuild wall Muliple. (Clean up)

1

Oldham & District RSPB Members Group

Bird Watching Rec. (Event) 1

255


Oughtrington Community Association

Planting and clean up Env. (Habitat man.)

1(F)

Parrswood RuralTrust (Friend of Parrswood)

Fair and open day Rec. (Event) 0.5

Peak National Park & Hayfield Civic Trust

Clean up (Joint Derbyshire Service)

Env. (Clean up)

0.5(F)

Peak National Park & Hayfield Civic Trust

Clean up (Joint Derbyshire Service)

Env. (Clean up)

0.5

Pendle Civic Trust Clean up Env. (Clean up)

1

Poulton Parish Council Habitat (Warrington Angler Ass) (F)

Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5*2

Prince Albert Angling Association

Clean up (Macclesfield Ranger)

Env. (Clean up)

0.5

Queen’s Park Restoration Group Creation of wetlands Env. (Habitat man.)

2

Queen’s Park Restoration Group Group exhibition and talk Edu. (Public) 1Queen’s Park Restoration Group Pond Clearance and BBQ Multiple

(Clean up)1(F)

Ramblers’ Association (Darwen RVI)

Walk along Darwen Rec. (Walk) 0.5

Rochdale & Bury RSPB Members Group

Bird watching Rec. (Event) 2

Rochdale Canal Society Walk Rec. (Walk) 1Rochdale Prince’s Trust Volunteer

Environment work (Hollingworth)

Multiple 0.5

Rossendale ETF Team (Groundwork Ross.)

Clean pond Env. (Clean up)

0.5(F)

Saddleworth Conservation Clean up Env. (Clean 1

256


Action Group up)Sankey Canal Restoration Society

Mulitple (St. Helens Ran. SankeyN)

Multiple 0.33

Sankey Canal Restoration Society

Canal clean up (St. Helens Ranger)

Env. (Clean up)

0.5(F) 0.5(F) 0.5(F)

Sankey Volleyball Club (Sankey Now)

Volleyball tournament Rec. (Event) 0.5

Sefton Conservation Volunteers Habitate creation Env. (Habitat man.)

2 1(F)

Shaw & Crompton Environment Group

Habitat (Beal Valley Partnership)

Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5

Shaw & Crompton Environment Group

Clean up of Fullwood (Groundwork)

Env. (Clean up)

0.5

Stacksteads Riverside Park Group

Clean up of the river Irwell Env. (Clean up)

1 1

Stockport Heritage Trust Heritage walking Rec. (Walk) 1(F)Stockport & District Anglers Federation

Angling competition Rec. (Angling) 1

Stockport RSPB Members Group

Bird Watch (High Peak, Stoc. YOC)

Rec. (Evnet) 0.33

Stockport YOC Group Bird Watch (High Peak, Stoc RSPB)

Rec. (Event) 0.33

Squares Tenants and Residents Association

Path and bridge improvement

Env. (Physical) 2

Tameside Princes Trust Volunteers

Environmental works Multiple 1

The Inland Waterways Protection Society

Projects being undertaken, clean up

Env. (Clean up)

1(F)

The Inland Waterways Repaint of bridge 59 Multiple 1(F)

257


Protection Society (Physical)The Inland Waterways Protection Society

Walk and tour Rec. (Walk) 1(F) 1

The Inland Waterways Protection Society

Walk and bridge inspection Multiple 2

The Loamy Wood Project Clean up Env. (Clean up)

1

The National Trust (Manchester N T)

Restoring nature area Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5(F)

The Norton Priory Museum Trust

Family learn event Edu. (Public) 1(F)

Todmorden Angling Society Junior open match Rec. (Angling) 1(F)Town Hill Community Trust Environmental fun day Rec. (Event) 1Trafford Ecology Park Voluntary Group

Guided walk Rec. (Walk) 1(F)

Wardens & Friends of Healey Dell

Clean up and BBQ Multiple 1(F)

Warrington Anglers Association Habitat (Poulton Parish Council) (F)

Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5*2

Warrington Anglers Association Angling tip Rec. (Event) 1Warrington Anglers Association Fishing competition Rec. (Event) 2 1Waterside Community Project Clean up, water test, access Multiple 2(F) 1Waterway Recovery Group Towpath improvement Env. (Other) 2(F)Whaley Bridge Amenity Society Walk (Blackbrook C

Society in 97)Rec. (Walk) 0.5*3 1

Whaley Bridge Amenity Society Clean up the river Goyt Canal Basin

Env. (Clean up)

1(F) 1(F)

Wheelton Boat Club Clean up of canal Env. (Clean up)

1(F) 1(F) 1(F)

258


Whitewell Bottom Junior Youth Club

Clean up Whitewell Brook Env. (Clean up)

1(F)

Whitewell Bottom Junior Youth Club

Clearing pathway to create a path


Wigan RSPB Members Group Bird Watching Rec. (Event) 2Wildfowl and Wetland Trust Guided walk Rec. (Walk) 2 1Winsford Anglers Clean up the river Weaver Env. (Clean

up)1(F)

Winsford Youth Forum Canoeing for leaning difficulties

Rec. (Water Sports)

1(F) 1

Wirral & Cheshire Badger Group

Pondlife (Avanley Conser. Society)

Edu. (Public) 0.5

Wirral Countryside Volunteers Woodwork demonstration Rec. (Event) 2(F)Wirral Footpath & Open Spaces Preservations Society

Walk on RiVa 2005 area Rec. (Walk) 1

Worsely Cruising Club (Manchester IWA)

Clean up canal and towpath Env. (Clean up)

0.5*2

Worsely Cruising Club Clean up and family party night

Multiple (Clean up)

2

Wycoller Country Park Family event, pond dipping Edu. (Public) 1* ‘5 joints’- a joint event of Manchester IWA, Atherton Environmental Projects, Clear Glaze RVI, Manchester Ship Canal Co, and Lorez Canal

Services.

259


Participations to the Mersey Basin Weekends: SchoolsOrganisation Description of Activities Category 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Acresfield Primary School Clean up and enhancing nature area

Env. (Habitat man.)

1 2(F)

Asmall Primary School Creating wildlife garden Env. (Habitat man.)

1(F)

Bishop Martin School (Crosby H Trust)

Pond clean up and dipping Env. (Clean up) 0.5(F)

Doveholes Primary School Planting and collecting seeds Env. (Habitat man.)

1 1

Fallibroome High School (Macc Rang)

Clean up, pond dipping Multiple 0.5

Fallibroome High School Clean up school pond Env. (Clean up) 1 1(F)Grappenhall School Pond management Env. (Habitat

man.)2(F)

Green School Network Clean up school and college Env. (Clean up) 1Hollin Primary School (Grwk R, O, T)

Pond nature study Edu. (School) 0.5

Holland Moor School Tree planting in school ground

Env. (Habitat man.)

1

Horns Mile School Environment Group

Science projects Edu. (School) 1 1 1

Manchester Metropolitan University

Riverside studies Edu. (School) 1

Manchester Metropolitan University

Water Testing Env. (Water Test)

1

Moorhead High School Clean up of the river and stream

Env. (Clean up) 1(F) 1

Nelson & Colne College Clean up Env. (Clean up) 0.5*3

260


(Lomeshaye P)Nelson & Colne College (Lomeshaye P)

Wetland management Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5

North Manchester Schools Forum

Clean up and tree planting Env. (Habitat man.)

1(F)

Ouder Hill Community School Creating beach area and planting

Env. (Habitat man.)

1(F)

Oughtrington Primary School Walk, clean up, planting Multiple 1(F)Our Lady Queen of Peace School

Tree planting in school grounds

Env. (Habitat man.)

1

Penkford School (Sankey Now)

Bulb planting at school garden

Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5

St. Anne’s R.C. Primary School

Clean up Env. (Clean up) 1

St. Michael’s Primary School Improving nature area Env. (Habitat man.)

2(F)

West End Plant a Life Building dipping platform Env. (Physical) 1(F)West End Plant a Life Planting at school pond Env. (Habitat

man.)1(F)

Taxal & Fernilee Primary School

Clean up and enlarging a pond Env. (Habitat man.)

1

261


Participations to the Mersey Basin Weekends: Key Partners of the Mersey Basin CampaignOrganisation Description of

ActivitiesCategory 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Alt 2000 (Formby Residents) Clean up and planting Env. (Multiple) 0.5Alt 2000 Clean up and fun day Multiple 1 1Beal Valley Partnership Clean up wetland and

plantingEnv. (Habitat man.)

1

Beal Valley Partnership (Shaw … Group)

Clean up and habitat management

Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5

Blackburn & Darwen Borough Council

Multiple (Grwk B, Darwen RVI)

Env. (Multiple) 0.33

Bollin Valley Partnership Walk Rec. (Walk) 1Bollin Valley Partnership Clean up the river bank Env. (Clean up) 1British Trust Conservation Volunteers

Improve access Env. (Physical) 1(F)

British Trust Conservation Volunteers

Clean up Env. (Clean up) 1(F) 1(F)


Mass task for local group Multiple 1(F)


Consultation meeting and clean up

Multiple (Other) 2(F)

BTCV (Moore Nature Reserve) Leaning craft skill Rec. (Event) 05.*3BTCV (Friends of Prestwich Forest Park)

Tree planting Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5

BTCV (Friends of Prestwich Forest Park)

Clean up Env. (Clean up) 0.5

BTCV (Halton & Warrington Midweek Gp)

Improve local habitat Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5

British Waterway Walking around canal Rec. (Walk) 1 1 1

262


Canal Partnership Clean up canalside Env. (Clean up) 1Canal Partnership Fishing competition and

walkRec. (Multiple) 1

Cheshire Wildlife Trust Erecting owl boxes Env. (Habitat man.)

1(F)

Cheshire Wildlife Trust (Weaver RVI)

Clean up of Valley Brook Env. (Clean up) 0.5

Cheshire Wildlife Trust Water testing at Tameside Env. (Water Test)

1(F) 1

Clear Glaze Partnership Clean up of Westleigh brook

Env. (Clean up) 1

Clear Glaze Partnership (5 joints)*

Clean up canal Env. (Clean up) 0.2

Clear Glaze Partnership (Groundwork)

Community events Rec. (Event) 0.5

Darwen RVI (NWW) Open day of WWTW Edu. (Public) 0.5Darwen RVI (Grwk Blackburn, B&D Council)

Clean up and practical works


Darwen RVI Clean up the river and bank

Env. (Clean up) 1 1

Darwen RVI Sculpture workshops Other 1Darwen RVI (Ramblers’ Association)

Walk along Darwen Rec. (Walk) 0.5

Day RVI Clean up of Bryning Brook

Env. (Clean up) 1

Groundwork (Littleborough Civic Trust)

Repair of steps and walkpath (F, 95)


Groundwork (Clear Glaze Partnership)

Community events Rec. (Event) 0.5

263


Groundwork Blackburn (D RVI, B&D Coil.)

Clean up and practical works


Groundwork Macclesfield & Vale Royal

Green Health Check on businesses

Other 1


Clean up with businesses Env. (Clean up) 1(F)


Canoeing on the canal Rec. (Water Sports)

1(F)

Groundwork R, O, T (Hollin School)

Pond nature study Edu. (School) 0.5

Groundwork R, O, T (S & C Env. Group)

Clean up Fullwood Env. (Clean up) 0.5

Groundwork Rochdale, Oldham & Tameside

Pond Clean up & planting Env. (Habitat man.)

1


Launch of newsletter Other 1


Clean up of the river Env. (Clean up) 1(F) 1


Physical development Env. (Physical) 1


Wetland habitat, footpath improve

Env. (Habitat Man.)

1 1(F)


Pond Dipping Env. (Water Test)

1(F)

Groundwork Rossendale (Bacup DEA)

Clean up, planting Env. (Clean up) 0.5

Groundwork Rossendale Opening of picnic site Env. (Physical) 1Groundwork Rossendale (Ross. ETF Team)

Clean up of pond Env. (Clean up) 0.5(F)

264


Groundwork Salford & Trafford Clean up, Walkway (Salford CC)

Env. (Multiple) 0.5

Groundwork Salford & Trafford Development lake and pond

Env. (Habitat man.)

1(F)

Groundwork St. Helens, Knowsley, Sefton

Planting wildflowers Env. (Habitat men.)

2

Groundwork Tameside Path improvement Env. (Physical) 1(F)Groundwork Wigan Clean up Beech Hill Env. (Clean up) 1Groundwork Wirral (RiVa 2005) Gateway improvement,

plantingEnv. (Multiple) 0.5

Manchester Ship Canal Co. (5 joints)*

Clean up canal Env. (Clean up) 0.2

Medlock/Tame RVI Watery fun with schools Edu. (School) 1Mersey Basin Business Foundation

Variety environmental tasks

Multiple 1 1 1

Mersey Strategy Launch of action programme

Other 1

Mersey Valley Partnership (E M Energy)

Enhancing the nature trail area

Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5*2

North West Water (Darwen RVI) Open day of WWTW Edu. (Public) 0.5North West Water (Wigan Ranger Service)

Walk and open day of WWTW

Mulitple 0.5 0.5

North West Water River clean up Env. (Clean up) 1North West Water Open day of WWTW Edu. (Public) 6 2REEL Guided walk Rec. (Walk) 1Riva 2005 Clean up Env. (Clean up) 1Riva 2005 RVI (Groundwork Wirral)

Gateway improvement, planting

Env.(Multiple) 0.5

Riva 2005 RVI Waterside fun day Mulitple 1

265


RiVa 2005 RVI River poetry competition Rec. (Event) 1Salford City Council Clean up, walkway

(Salford GW)Env. (Multiple) 0.5

Sankey Now (St Helens Ranger, SCARS)

Pond, picnic area Multiple 0.33

Sankey Now (Sankey Volleyball Club, 97)

Volleyball tournament Rec. (Event) 0.5 1

Sankey Now Wildlife Watching Rec. (Event) 1Sankey Now (Penkford School) Bulb planting at school

groundEnv. (Habitat man.)

0.5

The Environment Agency Tree planting Env. (Habitat man.)

1

Upper Weaver RVI Clean up of Leoghton Brook

Env. (Clean up) 1

Weaver RVI Guided walk Rec. (Walk) 1Weaver RVI (Lion Salt Works Trust)

Historical evening Rec. (Event) 0.5

Weaver RVI (Cheshire Countryside Service)

Producing environmental sculptures

Other 0.5*2

Weaver RVI (Cheshire Wildlife Trust)

Clean up of Valley Brook Env. (Clean up) 0.5

266


Participations to the Mersey Basin Weekends: Ranger ServicesOrganisation Description of

ActivitiesCategory 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Blackburn Borough Council Service

Clean up at Witton Country Park

Env. (Clean up) 1

Cheshire Countryside Management Service

Migration watch and record

Rec. (Event) 1


Producing environment sculptures

Other (WeaverRVI)

0.5*2


Walk Rec. (Walk) 1 1

Croal Irwell Valley Countryside Services

Ravenden Brook clean up Env. (Clean up) 1(F)

Croal Irwell Valley Countryside Services

Walk along the Irwell Rec. (Walk) 1

Derbyshire Countryside Service Clean up river Sett Env. (Clean up) 1(F)Derbyshire Countryside Service (Hayfield CT)

Clean up Env. (Clean up) 0.5(F)

Derbyshire Countryside Service (Peak N. Park)

Clean rubbish from the river

Env. (Clean up) 0.5(F)

Derbyshire Countryside Service (Peak N. Park)

Clean rubbish from the river

Env. (Clean up) 0.5

Lancashire Countryside Service Pond dipping Edu. (Public) 4(F) 2Liverpool Ranger Service Talk on otter Edu. (Public) 1Liverpool Ranger Service Casting competition Rec. (Event) 1Macclesfield Ranger Service (Fallibroome Sch)

Clean up and pond dipping

Multiple 0.5

Macclesfield Ranger Service Pond work at Rectory Fields

Env. (Habitat man.)

1

267


Macclesfield Ranger Service (Prince A A Ass.)

Clean up (PA Angling Associat.)

Evn. (Clean up) 0.5

Manchester Leisure Services (Man. P Trust)

Access Env. (Physical) 0.5*2

Mersey Valley Countryside Warden Service

Access improvement Env. (Physical) 1


Pond management Env. (Habitat man.)

1


Guided walk around Chorton

Rec. (Walk) 1(F)

Oldham Countryside Service Voluntary Rangers

Clean up of the Medlock Env. (Clean up) 1(F) 1(F)

Peak National Park Ranger Service Clean up Env. (Clean up) 1(F)Rochdale Countryside Warden Service

Pond Management Multiple (Clean up)

1(F) 1 1(F)

Salford Countryside Ranger Service Woodland walk Rec. (Walk) 1Sefton Coast and Countryside Management Service

Canal safari Rec. (Event) 1

Sefton Coast and Countryside Management Service

Tour of pumping station Rec. (Event) 1

Sefton Coast and Countryside Management Service

Pond dipping Edu. (Public) 1

Sholver Rangers Foundation Access improvement Env. (Physical) 2Smithills Countryside Warden Service

Clean up Ravenden Env. (Clean up) 2 1 1

St. Helens Ranger Service (SankeyNow, SCARS)

Pond, picnic area Multiple 0.33

St. Helens Ranger Service Evening talk Rec. (Event) 1St. Helens Ranger Service Canal clean up (SCARS) Env. (Clean up) 0.5(F) 0.5(F) 0.5(F)

268


Stockport Urban & Countryside Service

Clean up of Etherow Env. (Clean up) 1(F)

Tameside Countryside Warden Service

Watery event, family fun fair

Rec. (Event) 1

Warrington Borough Council Ranger Service

Walk Rec. (Walk) 1


History study (Fri. Woolstom)

Rec. (Event) 0.5(F)


Walk (Moore Nature R Wardens)

Rec. (Walk) 0.5


Build a willow seats Env. (Physical) 2


Reed harvest (Friend Woolston)

Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5


Crunching competition Rec. (Event) 1


Woodland discovery day Rec. (Event) 1 1


Walk (World Wide Fund, 1999)

Rec. (Walk) 1 0.5

West Lancashire Countryside Ranger Service

Art workshop using recycled

Rec. (Event) 1


Pond Habitat improvement

Env. (Habitat man.)

1


Children’s batty workshop

Rec. (Event) 1 1

Wigan MBC Countryside Ranger Service

Walk and open day of NWW

Multiple 0.5 0.5

Wigan MBC Countryside Ranger Walking event Rec. (Walk) 1

269


ServiceWirral Ranger Service River dipping, walk,

displayMultiple (Event)

2

Wirral Ranger Service Bird watch Rec. (Event) 1

Participations to the Mersey Basin Weekends: Others

Organisation Description of Activities Category 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999ACRE Recycling Clean up of River Irk Env. (Clean up) 1 1 1 1City Environment Centre Pond Dipping Edu. (Public) 2(F)Congleton Town Council Planting 4,500 wild flower

bulbsEnv. (Habitat man.)

1

Edison Mission Energy (Mersey Valley P.)

Enhancing the nature trail area

Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5*2

Frodsham Town Council Tree dressing (Cheshire Landscape T)

Env. (Habitat man.)

0.5(F)

Frodsham Town Council (F W C Group)

Walk (Frodsham Wildlife Conserv.)

Rec. (Walk) 0.5*2

Hollingworth Lake Country Park Talk about canals Edu. (Public) 1Lorenz Canal Service (5 joint)* Clean up canal Env. (Clean up) 0.2New Mills Heritage and Information Centre

Walks around the heritage centre

Rec. (Walk) 2

New Mill Urban Study Centre Build safe platform and water test

Multiple 3(F)

Pure Adventure Problem solving at water’s edge

Env. (Others) 1(F)

Salford Quays Heritage Centre Guided Tour on Environment Improve

Rec. (Walk) 2 (F)

270


The Boat Museum, Ellesmere Port

Fun fair for children Rec. (Event) 2

Vale Royal Environmental Network

Public consultation of document

Other 1

Visions Community Design Open day in Castlefield Rec. (Event) 2(F)Water Adventure Centre, Droysden

Canoeing (School, woman) Rec. (Water Sports)

1(F) 1(F) 1(F) 4(F)

Worldwide Fund for Nature WWF annual sponsored walk Rec. (Walk) 2Worldwide Fund (Warrington Ranger)

Walk to grab some sponsors Rec. (Walk) 0.5

271

Appendix Three: Publications

Appendix Three:

Publications

272

There is a widespread acknowledgement that urban · Web viewSource: Muir and Rance (1995:...

Documents

Transcript of There is a widespread acknowledgement that urban · Web viewSource: Muir and Rance (1995:...