|
Policy arrangements, a concept for case studies on green-structures and urban planning. Marleen Van den Top, The Netherlands Paper made available to the COST C11 Working party.
Case
Studies in Policy
Arrangements Policy
arrangements Discussion Cases |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Policy arrangements , a concept for case studies on green-structures and urban planning. The concept of policy arrangements is a theoretical notion that can help us in analysing changes in policies on green-structures and urban planning. The concept is described in 'Political Modernisation and the Environment; The Renewal of Environmental Policy Arrangements', by Van Tatenhove, Arts and Leroy (ed.). It was a.o. used as an framework for the analysis of European nature conservation policies in the Netherlands by Van den Top and Van der Zouwen. A policy arrangement is defined as "the temporary stabilisation of the organisation and substance of a policy domain at a specific level of policy making". (Arts e.a. in Van Tatenhove e.a., 2000: 54) In relation to the COST action C11, the policy domain is that of green-structure- and urban planning.
Arts, Van Tatenhove and Leroy have operationalised the concept of policy arrangement into a clear scheme (2000: 56). The dimensions of the policy arrangement have been described as follows by Van der Zouwen and Van den Top (2000):
1. The actors involved or coalitions between actors: Actors are organisations or institutions which operate in a specific policy domain. The term 'coalition' is used to indicate the interaction between actors. A coalition is a group of actors who more or less share the same policy goals and programmes. The latter make up the base for the involvement in the policy process.
2. The distribution of power and influence between the actors. Power is determined by the dependency relations and the distribution of resources among the actors. Resources can be financial means, knowledges, access to media, etc. The distribution indicates for instance the influence of the actors in the various stages of the policy process.
3. The prevailing policy discourse. To give meaning to and solve environmental problems, actors use so-called policy discourses. After Hajer (1995), Van Tatenhove et al. (2000) a policy discourse is defined as "a specific ensemble of ideas, concepts, and categorisation that are produced, reproduced and transformed in a particular set of practices and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities".
4. The prevailing rules of the game. Rules of the game determine how policies and politics are played and which norms are legitimate. A distinction is often made between formal and informal rules. Formal rules are rules actors have formally agreed upon, while informal rules reflect the dominant political culture.
Relevant Literature
Tatenhove, J. van, B. Arts and P. Leroy (ed.) (2000). 'Political Modernisation and the Environment; The Renewal of Environmental Policy Arrangements', Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Top, M. van den and M. van der Zouwen (2000). 'Europees natuurbeleid in Nederland: een pionier die zichzelf in de weg loopt'. In: Landschap 17: 81 &endash; 96. Zouwen, M. van der and M. van den Top (in prep.). 'European nature conservation policies in the Netherlands &endash; a pioneer unable to implement its own ambitions', EUI-RSCAS/ Mediterranean Syndrome
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Policy
arrangements Discussion Cases
Carolyn Harrison Challenges for Green Structure Planning in England: some points for discussion based on my attempt to use the structure proposed by Marleen Often there is more than one policy discourse running concurrently. In the UK the 'urban containment' discourse has the longer pedigree but has run alongside the 'urban regeneration' one throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s Policy discourses: Descriptive: very much one in which green structures in the city are seen to be separate from those in the countryside. The recent Government White Papers (2001) - one each on the Future of Rural and Urban areas - maintains this separation. Green Belts around most major cities are seen as the main policy instrument for maintaining this separation. Revisions of county and regional plans continue to reassert and sometimes extend the area protected by Green Belts. Green Belts are essentially restrictive on development on whatever scale. The current planning discourse about 'where 2 million hew houses should be built in the period up to 2010' favours building on brownfield sites not greenfield sites &emdash; the former are mostly urban sites - and hence current national policy serves to reinforce the inviolability of Green Belts. At the same time one of the supposed benefits of maintaining a strong Green Belt is that it assists in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. There is little evidence to suggest that is the case. Hence, 'urban regeneration' became a new policy discourse in its own right in the 1990s when economic recession and structural changes in the economy left many old industrial areas derelict and many people unemployed. This perhaps is the discourse of the moment but the greenfield/brownfield debate is the new manifestation of the old containment discourse now meshing with the 'global discourse' of sustainable development and its manifestation in Europe as the 'compact city' etc. Prescriptive policy discourse:
Question: I am not sure whether in England we can anticipate the advancement of the concept of the city region in the way that Bettina and Stephan suggest for Germany. In some ways the Labour Government's decision to press ahead with Regional Development Agencies and with Regional Planning Advice etc might suggest this. Certainly some of the planners in London would support this &emdash; especially if Sustainable Development rhetoric is to mean anything on the ground. The concept of the 'ecological footprint' of the city meshes with the city region approach and is perhaps something we should discuss. This concept has informed some of the policy development thinking for the new London Plan Policy Coalitions Descriptive: support for the maintenance of existing Green Belt policy comes from local and district authorities seeking to respond to their constituents who have literally moved out of the city and have bought into the 'countryside aesthetic myth'. They are supported by a number of national, non-governmental organisations such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) who are fuelled by a desire to 'conserve the countryside for its own sake' &emdash; that is for intrinsic/aesthetic reasons not necessarily for functional and ecological reasons. This preservationist lobby is extremely powerful in the UK. It is also supported by the agricultural lobby largely because agricultural and forestry land use are regarded as 'confoming land uses' in Green Belts and not really subject to planning controls &emdash; other than on buildings. Currently the proposed London Plan prepared by the new Mayor of London does not contest the Green Belt which means that planning in London is to proceed within the discourse of 'densification' and 'the compact city'. Prescriptive coalitions: The Countryside Agency (formerly the Countryside Commission) now favours a more integrated approach to rural development. Farming, tourism and environmental land uses are seen as a positive means of addressing falling farm incomes, diversifying the rural economy, conserving fine landscape, enhancing biodiversity, and contributing to sustainable development. But, there is no equivalent national agency concerned with the promotion of green structure planning in the urban area &emdash; many researchers and practitioners believe such an agency is required. Recently the national Forestry Commission and the CA have expanded their activities in the urban area through particular programmes and projects. Such approaches are supported from within the urban area by The Urban Wildlife Trusts and a range of other local amenity NGOs. The emergence of Urban Park Forums in a number of cities including London is evidence of loose but as yet untested coalitions &emdash; often following new funding initiatives and lacking any strategic overview of need or of outcomes. In the South East and elsewhere the Housebuilders' Federation has repeatedly contested Green Belts and their extension. They continue to do so and argue for sensitive release of land for housing development that is well served by communication corridors. (Extensions to Stevenage just north of London would be an example.) Based in the private sector the Housebuilders'Federation does not form coalitions with NGOs although with the costs of house building on brownfield/polluted sites likely to be much higher than 'greenfield sites', and with government reluctance to help the housebuilders out with 'compensation' for this high costs &emdash; perhaps some movement in their position might be expected to occur. Perhaps a move to master planning on large scale re-developments advocated in the Urban White Paper may suggest closer relationships between developers, local authorities and other stakeholders, communities etc….Plus if European legislation seeks to 'regulate' businesses so that have to demonstrate how they contribute to sustainable development, this 'stick' may also galvanise some of the larger developers to put their house in order and enter into longer term local partnerships. Question: In terms of what we saw in Breda where the 'blue' structures of water courses are addressed as part of green structure, much less has been achieved in England. This would require the involvement of the Environment Agency &emdash; so a new cross-agency approach would be required to achieve a blue/green approach in urban areas. Is this true elsewhere? Question: Do state agencies with responsibilities for green structures in other European countries operate effectively in urban areas? Question: Is there evidence that the private sector is entering into local urban partnerships to deliver strategic and local gains for green structures rather than providing mitigation for environmental losses? Power and resources: Descriptive: Development during the Thatcher years became more private-sector led at a time when local plans became more plan led. This dominance resulted from the cuts in local authority budgets inflicted by central government. Local Authority Plans identified priority areas/zones and sites for development and as a result the private sector began to build up close relationships with the LAs. Economic efficiency came to dominate local authority service delivery and the public became construed as customers/clients with individual interests rather than as responsible citizens with collective concerns. At the same time 'Partnership approaches' to development became the basis for gaining entry to new funding sources from central government and Europe &emdash; the Single Regeneration Budget; Disadvantaged Area Status etc. Often the local community and environmental groups felt excluded from detailed discussions about environmental damage/mitigation until the end of the process and 'deals' appeared to have been done between the LA and the developer. At the same time in the 1980s-1990s Competitive Contract and Tendering (CCT) meant that maintenance contracts on public greenspace were standardised rather than fitted to needs of place or users. Many green spaces became little more than green deserts while others fell into disrepair. New funding opportunities from the National Lottery in the late 1990s designed to fund local, community-based initiatives have benefited urban areas but have failed to tackle the profound decline in the condition of many urban parks and open spaces &emdash; they lack a strategic perspective and it is difficult to know if grants are awarded on the basis of need or good practice. Prescriptive power and resources: with reduced income from central government and without a central agency responsible for providing strategic advice and agreed standards of provision/management for green structures, political commitment to green structures in urban areas is low and highly variable. A national policy focus on urban regeneration during the economic recession of the early and mid 1990s saw the creation of a number of local development partnerships many of which paid only lip service to the role the environment can play in regeneration. However, the Recent DTLR Report on Improving Urban Parks, Play Spaces and Green Spaces (May 2002) identifies several examples of partnership as good practice. In particular The Green Estate partnership in Sheffield is cited as demonstrating 'a wide range of creative and innovative features of good practice'. It is seen as a scheme which demonstrates how green spaces are integrated at a strategic level through a multi-agency based approach to regeneration that links environment and economy. There is a sense that the reduced funds available in LAs have served to initiate through necessity 'new partnerships' that better reflect local people's needs, and can contribute to a sense of community empowerment and to economic regeneration. However, experience is very patchy and the 'development/renewal context and opportunities differs regionally. A separate issue is the recent proposal in England to implement a system of 'environmental fees' to 'offset' environmental damage of developments rather than to negotiate how environmental damage might be valued and mitigated on an individual basis. In other words a move from negotiated to prescriptive solutions to mitigate environmental damage. It is unclear how the community is to be involved in this process &emdash; probably not! In practice, Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) - the tool of environmental economists - has dominated how environmental damage is to be assessed, especially on large infra-structure schemes. The Government has expressed its support for alternative methods of appraising infra-structure studies &emdash; multi-modal studies &emdash; which include an opportunity for local stakeholders to be represented on local partnerships established to review alternative proposals. They are usually out-numbered by other interests, and CBA still dominates as the method of assessing overall project benefits/disbenefits.
Question: Does the same regional disparity in development opportunities exist in other countries? In London development demand is high &emdash; so threats to existing green space are high. Elsewhere as in Sheffield perhaps the primary motivation for integrating the environment into development is more a concern for community development. Context is really important. Question: Does Master Planning facilitate early dialogue among environmental consultants, the local community and the developer and local state or not? Does it make a difference to the implementation of green structures on the ground? Question: Is the move from negotiated outcomes of environmental damage to prescriptive solutions replicated elsewhere in Europe? Does environmental economics dominate as the main way of framing how the environment is to be valued? Rules of the Game: Descriptive: The role of the LA in the development process is one of facilitator and enhancer, rather than as regulator and guardian of the pubic interest. This enhancement role in the development process, grew during the 1990s. Several high profile developments that threatened nationally important wildlife sites were permitted to go ahead by the Secretary of State. For example, the Music Corporation of America's application to build a theme park on Rainham Marshes an SSSI on the edge of London ( a small part is in the Green Belt) was permitted to go ahead; and the Cardiff Bay development is another case in point. Crystal Palace Park in London is another example where permission for development was strongly contested by local groups. Investment in parks and open spaces was withdrawn &emdash; it is always one of the first discretionary areas of LA spending to be eroded at times of financial hardship and without agreed minimum standards of provision, withdrawing funds is easy to justify. The spiral of neglect is often associated with calls to put sites to 'beneficial use' &emdash; ie development. In the south east of England where development pressures are high, financial returns from luxury housing development to local government are also high. Mitigation measures only really apply to sites of designated importance for wildlife etc, and many small green spaces were lost to development (GLA Report confirms loss of green space). These same conditions do not apply to other areas outside the south-east. As a result there are strong regional differences in what has happened to green structures and green spaces that are affected by wider economic trajectories. Prescriptive: multi-agency partnership in which the full range of environmental, social and economic benefits of well designed and managed green spaces is recognised at a strategic and local level. This requires inventiveness and creativity so that a range of funding sources can be tapped. It requires new skills and modes of working amongst a range of professionals in the public, private and voluntary sector. It requires cross-agency working; cross-departmental working in LAs etc and it means the voluntary sector has to work with private developers &emdash; their traditional adversaries etc. It also requires a quantitative and qualitative audit of the green space resource. At the moment most LAs do not have this kind of audit in place. It would also require monitoring and a base line 'standard' agreed on so that progress in developing and meeting targets could be part of this approach. Question: the voluntary sector including Urban Wildlife Groups has played an instrumental role in Sheffield in promoting and leading innovative projects that address social, economic and environmental regeneration. Is this the case elsewhere in Europe and is this an English or just a Sheffield phenomenon? Question: How effective are partnerships at representing the legitimate needs/wants of local people? In other words how well are community needs addressed in these partnerships? Question: For me, and others perhaps, questions of ethics also arise: why should local communities and the voluntary sector be required to deliver services that are the legitimate responsibility of the local authority? Without minimum standards of provision and management and a comprehensive evaluation of the full range of benefits (economic, social and environmental) that are associated with greenspaces, the LA can abdicate responsibility for something that is first and foremost valued because it is a common property resource. So while some successful partnership approaches suggest that 'necessity' has been 'the mother of invention', community involvement and partnership can also be a double-edged sword. Is this a question others believe to be important? Key questions There is a need to re-assess the positive contribution Green Belts can make as green structures that function as eco-belts - similar to Stockholm's Green Map mentioned in the Greenscom report. How can this be promoted and pursued? What can we learn from Europe?
'Partnerships' tend to be very unequal &emdash; the voluntary sector and the community give lots of time and energy that isn't always 'rewarded' through ownership of projects they are instrumental to delivering. How to demonstrate and reward the value of community effort and commitment so that future generations benefit? Is there a role for Land Trusts owned by the local community as part of the implementation process? ((Most of the questions that Bettina and Stephan raise for Green Structure Planning in Germany also apply to England)).
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Click button
to return to COST C11 - WG1B home page
updated 25 oct 2002