Work Package 4
Public Participation
UK Case Studies
Schemes and Strategies including
costs of partcipation
Contents:
Introduction 3
List of appendices 3
Approaches to engagement with stakeholders 4
Benefits of stakeholder engagement to lead agency and others 5
Lead agency systems 6
Costs & Resources 6
Implications for new guidelines on engagement 7
Lessons Learned 7
Conclusion and recommendations 8
Case Studies:
Abbotts Hall Scheme 10
Horsey Island Scheme 16
Roach & Crouch Strategy 21
Kelling To Lowestoft SMP 30
Suffolk Estuarine Strateg 37
Work Programme 4: Case Studies on Stakeholder Engagement Overview
Introduction
This overview summarises the main issues arising from a review of approaches to engaging stakeholders1 in flood risk management undertaken as part of the ComCoast project2. The UK Environment Agency selected a sample of six experiences for review from the east of England. These are listed at Table 1. The detailed case studies are appended. The cases were analysed using a framework, which aimed to highlight:
The kinds of strategies used by lead agencies when engaging with stakeholders; and The benefits that accrue to lead agencies and stakeholders from engagement.
Appendix 1. Abbotts Hall
The Blackwater Estuary is one of the largest in East Anglia, covering almost 4,400 ha and is an internationally important area for wildlife. It is threatened by “coastal squeeze.” The Abbotts Hall Farm was one of the first sites where the impacts of “managed realignment” could be monitored with a view to replicating the model in estuaries across the region. Appendix 2.
Horsey Island
Horsey Island lies within an EU Special Area of Conservation in North Essex and protects flood defences further up the backwaters. The Horsey Island project used dredged sediments from the nearby port of Harwich to recreate inter-tidal habitats. It established new mudflats and saltmarshes to act as natural flood defences by reducing currents and breaking up wave activity.
Appendix 3. Kelling to Lowestoft Ness SMP
The North Norfolk shoreline management plan (SMP) aimed to provide a framework for flood risk management and coastal protection into the 22nd century with inputs from stakeholders. The plan considered objectives, policy setting and management requirements for three main epochs: from the present day to 20 years, 20 to 50 years and 50 to 100 years respectively. Appendix 4. Roach and Crouch Flood Risk Management Strategy
The Roach and Crouch Flood Risk Management Strategy focused primarily on flood risk management. It also considered the need: to comply with EU Habitat Directive requirements; to enhance biodiversity; to minimise /mitigate any impacts on sailing and navigational access within the estuary; and to ensure there are no impacts on water quality from landfill sites located behind some of the sea defences.
Appendix 5. Suffolk Estuaries Project
A proposed 100-year flood risk management plan for Suffolk containing proposals for three estuaries in the county: the Blyth, the Alde and Ore and the Deben. There was a phased approach to developing the plan using a river-by-river approach. The first of these was the Blyth.
Appendix 6. Weymarks and Wallasea
In response to a European Court of Justice ruling on the environmental impacts of port development in the Medway and Orwell estuaries in the mid 1990s, the Government made a commitment to provide compensation for the loss of mudflats and salt marsh. A site at Weymarks was identified, but was subsequently ruled out and Wallasea Island was chosen.
Table 1: Six case studies analysed for the ComCoast work programme 4 project
1 For the purposes of this project the term stakeholders has been used to describe parties with an interest in flood risk
management. It is used to refer to formal organisations, informal groups as well as members of the public concerned about the issue.
The six case studies can be classified as either:
Strategic (i.e. relating to the development of flood risk management strategies) as seen in the cases of Kelling and Lowestoft Ness, Roach and Crouch and Suffolk; or
Site specific (i.e. relating to the development of flood risk management schemes in specified locations) as seen in the cases of Abbotts Hall, Horsey Island and Weymarks and Wallasea
Approaches to engagement with stakeholders
Lead agencies vary their approach to stakeholder engagement according to the context. These are summarised in Table 2. By definition, the strategic projects employ approaches that are more general and tend to follow a structured pattern, usually prescribed by legislation or guidelines. Site based projects can focus on key interests, and employ problem solving approaches taking advantage of flexible project design.
Measures taken to engage with stakeholders on strategic issues
Measures taken to engage with stakeholders on site specific issues
Stakeholders identified by project steering group, which brings together technical agencies with a strategic outlook.
Stakeholders identified by project team and project partners drawing on an awareness of site history, local knowledge and networks Communications plans drawn up at the
outset emphasising access to draft plans and public engagement at key milestones (e.g. to provide information on shortlisted options)
Communication plans drawn up at the outset placing emphasis on providing accessible information (e.g. video). Statutory consultation processes (e.g. provision for consultation within
Environmental Impact Assessments) are augmented by additional consultations (e.g. site visits) to respond to consultees specific concerns
Key interests (e.g. parish councils) identified based on the extent to which they are indicative or representative of local opinion.
Key interests (e.g. oystermen or
landowners) identified according to the impact of the project on their livelihood or assets
A programme of consultative events is held in various locations to engage the public at large to get feedback on technical options including exhibitions and surgeries. Publicity materials take the form of posters, information bulletins, and brochures. Websites are also established to share information and receive feedback.
Following public meetings, detailed one to one negotiations are held with key interests to address their concerns by providing information (e.g. results from monitoring) or making adjustments to the scheme (e.g. timing and location of sea wall breach)
Benefits of stakeholder engagement to lead agency and others
The case studies showed that engagement on flood risk management issues results in benefits to both the lead agency and stakeholders. These benefits accrue in three ways: engagement improves image and perceptions; engagement improves policy discussions; and engagement improves project design and implementation. These benefits are
summarised at Table 3.
Lead Agency Stakeholders
Perceptions Lead agency image
improved in the eyes of stakeholders making them more likely to participate in future consultations Lead agency image
improved in the eyes of its peers who see it as a facilitator, capable of bringing institutions together
Stakeholders image
improved in the eyes of the lead agency seeking
partners for future projects
Policy Lead agency gains allies in
its efforts to influence policy
Stakeholders gain access to policy debates through lead agency
Project design and
implementation Lead agency gains accessto additional material and technical resources which improve project design and implementation
Lead agency gains support for project outcomes, improving chances of smooth implementation
Stakeholders have opportunity to influence project processes and outcomes in their interests
Table 3: Benefits of engagement on flood risk management for lead agencies and stakeholders.
For these benefits to be realised there is a need to build relationships based on trust. This can take considerable time, particularly where stakeholders believe that they have nothing to gain from participating. Previous negative experiences of engaging in public
consultations (for example where their concerns have not been acknowledged) can discourage stakeholders from taking part again.
The case studies showed that benefits to stakeholders mainly accrue to those groups that are best equipped to argue their case, are best organised, or have access to material, technical
or political resources (for example well connected stakeholders in the Suffolk Estuaries Plan felt that there was too much public consultation as they were already aware of the issues). Public sector lead agencies have a responsibility to ensure that all who have expressed an interest in a flood risk management initiative feel that their concerns have been heard.
The site specific case studies showed how trust and respect can be built, by taking stakeholders’ concerns seriously. Methods used to build trust included acknowledging correspondence and responding to concerns raised (for example in writing or by meeting with them one-to-one) and incorporating new design features into schemes that address concerns raised (for example by initiating research that answers their questions). The case studies showed that these methods required a degree of flexibility in project design, allowing scope for the lead agency to respond effectively.
Lead agency systems
The case studies showed that there are signs that the institutional cultures of lead agencies are opening up to stakeholder engagement. However, the emphasis remains on technical solutions to technical problems rather than working with partners to build consensus around short, medium and long term actions. There is a growing recognition of the need to
communicate effectively with stakeholders (for example through Defra’s regional communications network).
Flood risk management is an emerging concept and although some steps have been taken to institutionalise stakeholder based approaches for example through consultative forums, there is more to do primarily in reconciling the technical outlook of lead agencies, with highly charged political environment that they work in.
The lack of formal internal systems that promote and encourage engagement among lead agencies has been seen as an opportunity by some officers who, based on their personal commitment to participation have used innovative strategies to work with stakeholders. They have identified a need for better formal systems that can facilitate internal learning on engagement strategies and techniques.
The tendency of lead agencies to give more staff members project management
responsibilities has the potential to improve efficiency. Stakeholder engagement is one area where new managers are being given opportunities. However, they (particularly relatively junior staff) must enjoy access to support systems, materials and other resources that enable them to do the job.
The use of consultants has also grown. The case studies have shown that where consultants are fully integrated into project management teams and have a highly developed
understanding of local issues they can play an important part in stakeholder engagement.
Costs and resources
Project leaders were asked to estimate the costs of stakeholder engagement. This was done by assessing the average annual salary of the staff involved (x) and estimating the number of days spent on engagement. These figures were used in following formula:
This hourly cost was then multiplied by the number of hours in the days estimated. The costs of materials, meetings and printing were also estimated and added to this figure. The estimates varied between the strategic and site specific initiatives. Spending on engagement in strategic processes was estimated at between 10-20% of overall project costs. The main budget items included: communications planning, public meetings (roadshows, exhibitions and surgeries), printing and websites. For site specific projects spending on engagement ranged from 1-10% with resources being used for meetings with stakeholders (informal and formal settings) and following up on their concerns (through correspondence or site visits). Site based projects also used Environmental Impact Assessment processes to supplement existing resources set aside for engagement (for example by producing videos or DVDs to explain issues).3
Implications for new guidelines on engagement
The UK Environment Agency has produced a guidelines document aimed at encouraging officers to engage with stakeholders called “Building Trust with Communities.” Few project leaders had used the document as an aid to their work with stakeholders but all felt that their approaches were consistent with the guide’s main messages. As the Environment Agency seeks to update these guidelines, opinions were canvassed on the content of a revised document. Project leaders called for guidance on:
The identification of stakeholders, and in particular understanding who needs to be involved;
What to expect from stakeholders during consultations;
How to spot trouble and the actions needed to address problems;
How to use visual aids, particularly maps, flow diagrams, and checklists; How to organise and run workshops and exhibitions;
Where to find and how to use sources of support and guidance available to staff on engagement with consultees;
How to make the best use of staff at consultations (particularly those that can communicate technical information in an accessible way);
How to make use of all external facing activities (e.g. on flood warnings) as opportunities for consultation; and
How to use strategic alliances with partner organisations to draw on additional resources There is a demand for new guidelines that move from advocating stakeholder engagement (an argument that has now been widely accepted) to specific guidance on the techniques and methods. This could be done by using simple to use manuals that take the user through each stage of the project cycle. However, new guidelines will not improve performance in this field on their own. They need to plug into broader institutional systems that enable and encourage staff to engage with stakeholders.
Lessons learned
The experiences of lead agencies in planning and implementing stakeholder engagement point to the following lessons:
3
Planning: Planning for stakeholder engagement must start early and be integrated into
broader project design. This should identify stakeholders or the target audience to be
reached. This enables resources to be focussed on those likely to be directly affected by site specific projects and those with most to lose in strategic initiatives. Planning must also consider the political context for flood risk management including stakeholders’ previous experiences of consultation and the way that electoral processes can affect stakeholder engagement.
Engaging: Stakeholders must feel that they have something to gain from participating in
consultation processes. At the very least they need to know that their concerns have been registered and at best that they have influenced project design or outcomes. Lead agencies have also improved their engagement processes by making use of local knowledge (e.g. of local networks or technical knowledge of estuary dynamics).
Communicating: Lead agencies are increasingly recognising the need to develop
communications plans and draw on specialist advice in this field. This has led to an emphasis on providing stakeholders with information in accessible formats (for example through increased use of graphics and video). Lead agencies are also improving the development of their key messages in making the case for flood risk management. For example where myths are spread (for example citing the Dutch approach to flood defence) lead agencies have challenged misinformation to good effect using simple fact sheets. Web-based approaches have also proved to be an effective means of disseminating key
messages, with the potential to be interactive.
Conclusion and recommendations
The scale and scope of the challenges cannot be understated. Lead agencies that were established to focus on the technical issues related to flood risk management and biodiversity have to adapt. The expectation and requirement that these functions be conducted in a way that addresses concerns and builds broad based consensus between disparate stakeholders calls for new systems and skills. For example, there must be greater emphasis on joint working with partners (such as Wildlife Trusts) that have expertise in the field of stakeholder engagement. They should be included in strategic project groups from the outset. The case studies have shown that by working in partnership with other technical agencies and by building trust with communities and their interest groups, engagement with stakeholders on flood risk management issues can be improved.
There is a growing body of expertise within lead agencies on stakeholder engagement but current systems do not encourage the sharing of knowledge on this matter. For example, the technical ethos of lead agencies should not prevent staff with communications skills and expertise from joining project management teams. Capacity building on stakeholder
engagement should be rolled out across lead agencies. Training should be made available to all staff, not just project managers. It should focus on strategic issues (such as how to plan engagement) as well as the specific components of engagement processes (for example emphasising the importance of preparation, building presentation skills, explaining the mechanics of room layout).
Stakeholder engagement must be institutionalised. The ad hoc approach taken to date has led to the development of models of good practice and contributed to internal learning. However there is need to ensure that stakeholder engagement is an integral part of project
design from the outset, and that the requisite skills and budgets are in place. This is not to say that a one-size-fits-all approach to consultation should be adopted. Project planning must tailor approaches to the context, so that for example more time is taken with some stakeholders than others.
The nature of flood risk management poses several challenges for stakeholder engagement. It requires multi-disciplinary approaches (where the norm is compartmental), it calls for partnerships (where the norm is for agencies to work in isolation) and it is concerned with long-term strategies (where the norm is short term). Lead agencies need to address
challenges on each of these levels if further and substantive progress is to be made in this field.
Appendix 1. Case Study: Abbotts Hall Background
The Blackwater Estuary is one of the largest in East Anglia, covering almost 4,400 ha and is an internationally important area for wildlife. It is threatened by “coastal squeeze” (where mudflats and saltmarsh, trapped between sea walls and the rising sea begin to degrade). Over the last 25 years up to 40% of Essex saltmarsh has been lost this way. The Abbotts Hall Farm lies 10km south of Colchester on Salcott Creek, a 6km long tributary of the Blackwater Estuary. A consortium of organisations joined to turn the farm into a functional model for sustainable coastal development. The Essex Wildlife Trust (EWT), the World Wildlife Fund (WWF-UK ), the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF), English Nature (EN) and the Environment Agency (EA) came together in what has been described as a “big tent” to develop 80 ha of the 287 ha estate into a wetland for sustainable flood defence.
The farm became one of the first sites where the impacts of “managed realignment” (where a breach is made in sea defences allowing the sea to advance to high land or where sea defences are newly aligned nearer the land) could be monitored with a view to replicating the model in estuaries across the region.
Chronology
2000: In February, EWT purchased and started to sustainably develop Abbotts Hall Farm with funding from WWF-UK, HLF, a legacy from the late Joan Elliot, EN, EA and support from its members.
2002: In October, following two years of detailed planning, which drew on inputs from EN, EA and WWF UK, four breaches were made in the existing 3.5 km sea wall to the south of the farm, flooding the low-grade agricultural land that lay behind it. The breaches were synchronised to precede the October spring tide, which floated in seeds from the degrading marsh in front of the sea wall.
2003: In spring a fifth breach is made in the sea wall at the east of the farm (Copt Hall Creek) following consultation with oystermen, who had expressed concern at potential erosion caused by the first round of breaches. The threat of erosion is monitored and in summer, leads to changes in design to one of the creeks to reduce impacts. By May, shoots of saltmarsh plants and birdlife (geese, ducks and waders) are seen in the flooded area. An Environment Agency fish survey in the new inter-tidal area reveals 10 species using the area.
2005: The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM) and the RSPB award the Abbotts Hall project their 2005 “Living Wetlands Award.” This celebrated the establishment of a new wetland, providing habitats for a range of wildlife.
Measures taken to engage with stakeholders during the project
A picture of the stakeholders for the Abbots Hall project emerged using the local
knowledge of the project partners (EA, EN, EWT and WWF) each of whom had access to important networks. This picture included the site’s landowners and neighbouring interests.
In addition, the project team identified the postcodes of areas affected by the scheme and sent letters with project information to householders and businesses.
The island of West Mersea was important and the stakeholder identification helped to target key interests within that community. This revealed two principal groupings: the sailing community centred on the island’s yacht club and marina; and local oystermen.
An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the scheme provided a mechanism for communication and consultation. For example, the public was invited to comment on the original EIA and a revised version within a consultation process advertised in the local press.
The public consultation at Abbotts was a joint venture between the Environment Agency and the Essex Wildlife Trust. The EIA identified local and national interest groups. These were written to asking for their specific inquiries and concerns. Based on the responses one to one meetings were arranged with stakeholders. The consent and licensing process was handled by the Environment Agency. Most of the bodies notified of the planning
application needed dedicated meetings with councillors and planners, many of them on site to explain the issues and plans.
Public talks were held as joint ventures with speakers from both the Environment Agency and the Essex Wildlife Trust. These were held at the West Mersea Yacht Club, Burnham on Crouch and Braintree. Glossy brochures and newsletters were not produced as part of the EIA consultation process.
When a preferred project option was identified this was also publicised through local media. In addition, three presentations on the preferred option were made at different locations, targeting specific interests.
Members of the project team held one to one meetings with stakeholders. This was a time consuming process but it ensured that essential project information was communicated clearly, without any of the ambiguity there might have been if details were presented in a mass meeting. It also meant that the project team could understand the individual concerns of each group of stakeholders. Time was also spent with stakeholders on-site. Guided walks were organised to explain the issues that the project aimed to address. This helped to convey complex information in an immediate and interactive way.
Most of the issues raised by the public were addressed by the end of the consultation, but two remained unresolved: The RSPB continued to express concern at the impacts of the project on their neighbouring site; and the oystermen were uncertain at the impacts of recharge on the fishery. This led to the project team entering into discussions with these two interests on the details of the scheme before the EIA was finalised.
At the end of the discussions, additional changes were made, which included alterations to the location and scale of the main breach and the inclusion of the old sea wall in the project’s design. These satisfied the remaining concerned interests that the impacts on the adjacent bank (the RSPB’s site) would be reduced and that recharge would not affect the oyster fishery. The oystermen also raised concerns at pesticide levels running off into the
estuary. This was fed back to the major landowning interest (EWT – which was also a project partner) who as a result changed their land management regime.
Immediately before and after the breach was made the emphasis of the consultation process focussed on the oystermen. The project team employed consultants (with a brief to present data in an accessible way) to communicate the impacts that changes in the project’s design would have. They went on to provide feedback the results of monitoring data to the
oystermen. The EWT convened land management meetings with site stakeholders (two before the breach and two afterwards) and this provided a forum where monitoring data could be presented and feedback received.
Through the engagement process, the RSPB (a neighbouring landowner) was identified as having a key interest. They recognised the potential for some small-scale damage to their neighbouring saltings, however as a conservation partner also saw the merits of creating additional habitat. The process of communication with the RSPB (they were involved in meetings for consultees, received regular newsletters and had an open invitation to visit the site) ensured that they were kept informed throughout and that project implementation brought “no surprises.”
Discussions with the oystermen revealed that their concern at the prospect of increased volumes of organic matter in the aftermath of the breach. The project team undertook the removal of large quantities of organic material before the breach was made. This helped to demonstrate to the oystermen that their concerns were being taken on-board and this helped build trust.
Prior to the project, dialogue with the oystermen revealed that oyster stocks were in decline (regardless of any potential project impact). There was speculation that this was attributable to nearby sewage treatment works. The Environment Agency responded to these concerns by instituting random water quality monitoring (gauging changes in salinity, temperature, oxygen and turbidity) and linking this to the oyster population. This benchmark data enabled the project team to demonstrate that the project did not have a negative impact on the fishery post breach and that it had actually improved water quality.
The project team organised a large event to mark the first breach and around 2,000 people attended this. This provided an opportunity to explain the rationale for managed
realignment and explain how it works. The event was also a focus for media interest in the project, and received considerable coverage from local newspapers and radio stations. Managed realignment has been described as a process rather than an event and this has implications for communications and stakeholder engagement. At the site, the project’s objectives were not immediately obvious following completion of the works. The project team consequently realised that there was a need for on-site materials that could explain what had happened and what the project aimed to achieve.
Benefits to stakeholders and the implementing agency
The consultation process has turned Abbots Hall into a flagship site for all the lead organisations in the “big tent.” They have benefited from their association with a project that has drawn on stakeholder inputs. The project has also provided a model of how
managed realignment can work. The site has been featured on BBC television and an Open University module. It has demonstrated the practical benefits of stakeholder engagement
(for example improved project design and mitigated environmental impacts) as well as intangible plusses (for example key players shaping the project and taking ownership of it). Through the project’s consultation process stakeholders, such as oystermen, wildlife
interests and recreational users were able to identify, shared environmental concerns (for example water quality).
Oystermen have been able to use the project to find out more about the factors affecting their fishery. All of the project partners have been able to play a part in facilitating this. The project has also enabled the oystermen to develop key contacts within each of the partner organisations and this has helped them advance their own agenda. For example, key contacts within the Environment Agency were able to provide advice and guidance to the oystermen as they applied for permission to expand their fishery along the River
Blackwater.
Impacts on perceptions of the implementing agency
The project’s consultation process had a positive impact on perceptions of the Environment Agency. Stakeholders in the area now see it as open and accessible, with staff that listen and take issues raised on board.
Collegial relationships have developed between lead staff members and stakeholders. These relationships are based on trust, which has been built, for example through good
communications, the timely sharing of information, and the joint analysis of data.
The project has also built strong relationships between the lead partners, each of whom now have a better appreciation of their counterparts’ concerns. For example, the Essex Wildlife Trust was formerly a participant in consultation processes (a role that sometimes called for criticism of organisations such as the Environment Agency). Through participation in the project, the EWT has gained insights into the constraints and challenges facing
implementing agencies.
Implementing agency systems and stakeholder engagement
There were no formal systems in place for stakeholder engagement; however, the project leader recognised the need to get interested parties involved. The experience of consultation in the project showed that people might not know how consultation processes work and so need help in understanding what opportunities exist for them to have their say.
The EIA provided a framework for consultations, but there were no guides or templates. This meant that the approach to the engagement process was intuitive, with the project team feeling their way, guided by principles of openness and trust.
The experience has revealed the importance of interpersonal skills (for example the ability to listen to and empathise with people as well enthuse and excite them about a project) in establishing good lines of communication with stakeholders.
The learning derived from the project continues to be shared within the Environment Agency, but not on a systematic basis. Some feel that the area office structure can make it hard for staff to exchange experiences because of the physical barriers to communication. There is now a central system for sharing project information across the organisation; however as the project was a multi-agency effort it has not featured in the database. Learning is shared through networking for example at staff conferences and by word of mouth. A video on the project features the stakeholder engagement process and is useful tool for sharing lessons within the Environment Agency as well as with project partners to influence their processes. Environment Agency staff have also used site visits to show colleagues how the stakeholder process has worked. This has helped to bring the learning from the project to life.
Estimated costs of stakeholder engagement
The estimated costs of stakeholder engagement at Abbotts Hall, using the average annual salary of a staff member working on this component as £30,000:
13 days for pre-works consultation (identifying stakeholders and initial discussions) 13 days for consultation related to planning and other consents
26 days for follow-up discussions with stakeholders (including monitoring and feedback)
52 person days in total x 7.5 hours@ £13/ hour4 = £5,100
This figure covers a three-year period from 2001 to 2003. The total project costs set aside for the original project (which combined the managed realignment project at Abbotts Hall, with a recharge scheme at Horsey Island) was £645,000. In practice most of this was allocated to Abbotts Hall due to a delay in the Horsey Island project. Of this, £55,000 was earmarked for the EIA (again this focussed primarily on Abbotts Hall).
Effective elements of stakeholder engagement process
The effectiveness of the consultation process stemmed from the early identification of stakeholders and their concerns. As the process progressed, the nature of engagement changed, from one of general consultation with a broad audience to more focussed and detailed discussions with a smaller group of key stakeholders. Focussing in on key stakeholders enabled the efficient and effective use of resources for consultation.
Relevance of “Building Trust with Communities” guidelines
The project predated Building Trust with Communities, however many of the principles included in the guidelines are consistent with those that guided the project’s consultation process. For example, the project placed emphasis on understanding the community and this is consistent with the BTwC framework, which underscores the importance of starting engagement processes with good intelligence on key interests.
General lessons for Environment Agency stakeholder engagement
The main lessons from the stakeholder engagement process suggest the following key questions:
Who are the main stakeholders? The groups and individuals that have the most to gain or lose as a result of the project as well as those in a position to influence the project’s
outcomes must be identified at the earliest possible stage to allow time and resources to be used in addressing key issues.
Are the expectations clear? Stakeholders need to be clear about what they can expect from project partners. This calls for early discussion on the capacities and constraints of all those involved. In practice this saw the Environment Agency provide data on water quality to the oystermen, who in turn took responsibility for using it to advance their agenda.
Are there real benefits from participating? Stakeholders must feel that they will have gained something by taking part in consultation processes. These benefits do not have to be
material but at the very least stakeholders must feel that their issues will be addressed. For example, the oystermen received additional information on their fishery and referred to specialists for advice on some of their concerns.
Is the team working? Projects are increasingly collaborative in nature with each partner bringing particular capacities and strengths. This can enable projects to draw on a wide range of resources; however, teams need to be coordinated and lines of communication between them need to be clear. Among project partners, a negotiated memorandum of understanding helped to clarify the roles and responsibilities of each of the lead organisations.
Specific approaches and techniques for stakeholder engagement
The specific techniques used in the project included: setting out the consultation process so that stakeholders knew when and how to have their say on the project; providing a range of opportunities for stakeholders to engage, from public exhibitions to one-to-one meetings; and presenting information in an accessible way while ensuring that the meaning remained clear and unambiguous.
Implications for revised Environment Agency guidelines on stakeholder engagement
The main implication of the project’s experience for new guidelines on stakeholder engagement is that advice on techniques for stakeholder engagement and communications need to be fully integrated. The tendency to separate stakeholder engagement and effective communications has led to the development of separate and sometimes parallel disciplines. The project’s experience suggests that the two go hand in hand and should be treated as such in new guidelines on stakeholder engagement.
Sources
Karen Thomas (Environment Agency Project Leader)
Appendix 2. Case Study: Horsey Island Background
Saltmarshes and mudflats are eroding and degrading because of rising sea levels. The Environment Agency has an obligation to replace these areas under the European Union Habitats Directive. In 1999, it was estimated that Essex alone was losing 50 ha of saltmarsh per year.
Horsey Island lies within Hamford Water; this inlet is part of the Walton Backwaters (An EU Special Area of Conservation) in North Essex. The island is strategically important as its size and location protects flood defences further up the backwaters. It is therefore directly important to inland farms, a marina and the oyster fishery. Horsey is also a designated EU Freshwater Special Protection Area as a nationally important bird nesting and breeding site.
Since the mid 1990’s the Harwich Haven Port Authority have been required to dredge 3 million cubic metres a year to keep the port fully functional. The dredged material include fine sediments, which early experiments showed had the potential to be used to recharge eroded inter-tidal areas for flood defence and conservation purposes.
The Horsey Island project uses dredged sediments from the nearby port of Harwich to recreate inter-tidal habitats. It will also establish new mudflats and saltmarshes to act as natural flood defences by reducing currents and breaking up wave activity.
Chronology
1993-1994: The Environment Agency funded experimental inter-tidal recharge initiatives using coarse sediments dredged from Harwich Haven Harbour to protect saltmarshes in the Stour Estuary. Positive monitoring results led to experimental recharge using fine sediment at Horsey Island; however, spring tides washed away the deposited material.
1998: The Environment Agency and Harwich Haven Harbour conducted additional recharge experiments, including the placement of 20,000 cubic metres of mud on a degraded area of marsh in front of a sea wall on Horsey Island. This resulted in increased saltmarsh growth.
2000: The Environment Agency put together a programme titled “Sustainable Flood Defences” incorporating two projects: a managed realignment scheme at Abbotts Hall and a recharge initiative at Horsey Island, using fine sediments dredged from Harwich Haven Harbour. The Abbotts Hall project attracted most of the programme’s funding and was implemented. However, the Environment Agency remained committed to the Horsey Island project.
2001: Additional recharge is undertaken at Horsey Island to raise the level of the mud surface and enable the establishment of higher saltmarsh plants.
2005: Horsey Island was identified as a UK pilot site in the EC funded ComCoast
programme on multi-functional flood management schemes. In March monitoring stations were established to gather baseline data to provide evidence of the impacts of recharge. In
November, fine sediment material from Harwich was deposited on the island’s degrading saltmarshes.
Measures taken to engage with stakeholders during the project
Stakeholder engagement took place within the framework of the Food and Environment Protection Act (1985) Part II, which regulates the disposal at sea of dredged material. The permitting process requires consultation with a range of statutory agencies and other stakeholders. Following this process, as the project entailed works between the mean tide levels, it was publicised among the marine and yachting community. Initially this saw the proposed works advertised in the local press. There were no substantial problems during this process, however prior to the project there was a perception that mud from recharge would silt up the marina and affect the oyster fishery. Harwich Haven Authority and the Environment Agency worked together to allay these fears. Additional resources for an expanded monitoring programme and the results indicated no significant increase in suspended sediments during recharge or post project.
Moving from informing to communicating, the project team went on to identify who the local stakeholders were. This made use of local knowledge and networks and was done in conjunction with the landowner. This confirmed the yachting community (based at the marina) and local oystermen as key interests.
The project team also referred back to previous consultations on the dredging of the Harwich Channel. This revealed that a major challenge for the project would be to answer stakeholders’ questions on what would happen to mud when pumped ashore and what would happen to it when it began to wash away.
The Horsey Island project was one component of a broader sustainable flood defence programme in East Anglia involving the Environment Agency. The original programme included the project and a managed realignment scheme at Abbotts Hall and this was consulted on as a whole. In practice the Abbotts Hall project took precedence and was implemented ahead of Horsey Island.
The Environment Agency’s commitment to the Horsey Island project remained. This led to continuing discussions with the marina and oystermen on water quality issues in the area. These resulted in the setting up of a sediment monitoring system in 2004. With the benefit of hindsight, this dialogue helped to establish a relationship of trust between the
Environment Agency and key stakeholders prior to project implementation. It also helped to establish baseline data that would go on to provide vital evidence to concerned
stakeholders about the impacts of recharge.
The project team found that 12 key consultees had expressed an interest during previous consultations on recharge in the area. This included the marina and oystermen. The project team added English Nature to this list by virtue of its expertise on habitat creation and their involvement in original project design.
The timetable for the project was not fixed, although a budget was available for work to start in early 2005. In practice, the dredging company could not supply the material needed until autumn 2005. In August 2005 the Environment Agency sent a letter to the 12 key consultees, giving a briefing on the project and explaining that the recharge would start in
November 2005. There was only one response to this communication – which thanked the Environment Agency for the update.
Environment Agency staff were responsible for collecting water quality monitoring data and this brought them into regular contact with the oystermen, who would help locate sediment traps. These occasional and informal meetings with the oystermen at sea in their own milieu helped to reinforce their relationship with the Environment Agency staff.
Benefits to stakeholders and the implementing agency
The results of the water quality monitoring process, which informed the recharge project, were fed back to stakeholders (including the marina community and the oystermen). The oystermen in particular gained valuable insights on the factors affecting their fishery. They also had the opportunity to voice their concerns and influence the design of the project. This potentially controversial and innovative project was implemented smoothly. The Environment Agency benefited from the good relationships that it built up with stakeholders and valuable lessons were learned on the impacts of recharge.
Impacts on perceptions of the implementing agency
The perceptions of the Environment Agency were enhanced by the project. The good relationships that were developed were founded on open and honest communication, which resulted in durable partnerships – particularly between the Environment Agency and the oystermen.
The Environment Agency also developed a good working relationship with English Nature, which provided detailed expertise on the creation of new wildlife habitats. This joint
approach helped to reinforce the image of the Environment Agency with other institutions in the region as an organisation willing to enter into partnerships and share resources to achieve commonly held goals.
Implementing agency systems and stakeholder engagement
The Environment Agency had no formal systems in place to encourage stakeholder engagement. However, the project leader had developed a degree of expertise in this field as a result of previous experiences with other flood risk management projects.
Implementing agency learning on stakeholder engagement
There were no formal mechanisms within the Environment Agency to facilitate the exchange of lessons learned on stakeholder engagement. However, the project leader was able to draw on an informal network of colleagues committed to effective communications and community participation based at the Ipswich Area office to share experiences on stakeholder engagement.
Estimated costs of stakeholder engagement
The total estimated costs of stakeholder engagement at Horsey Island, using the average annual salary of a staff member working on this component as £30,000:
5 days for public consultation (identifying stakeholders and initial discussions) 7 days for following up with consultees (e.g. written correspondence)
7 days for follow-up discussions with stakeholders (including monitoring and feedback)
19 person days in total x 7.5 hours@ £13/ hour5 = £1,850
This estimate includes provisional discussions with stakeholders held when the Horsey Island project formed part of a joint package with the managed realignment scheme at Abbotts Hall.
These costs were for previous recharge schemes at Horsey 1998-2003. The 2005/6 tranche of sediment recharge entailed limited stakeholder engagement, comprising the sending of a letter to key people and two brief morning meetings with individual stakeholders:
oysterman Owen Bloom; and with Titchmarsh marina. The meetings served two purposes: to discuss the optimum site for monitoring kit designed to help demonstrate that there was no significant increase in suspended sediments as a result of the planned; and to make contact, discuss implementation and get feedback. Both consultees were satisfied with the dialogue. Of the 15 key consultees that were written to, only one responded (by
acknowledging receipt of the letter). It is therefore estimated that four staff days were spent on consultation for the 2005/6 recharge project. This underlines the effectiveness of
previous consultation.
Effective elements of stakeholder engagement process
The effectiveness of the stakeholder engagement process at Horsey Island stemmed from the effort made by the project leader to focus on communicating with the stakeholders directly affected by or able to contribute to the project. This enabled a working relationship to be developed with the oystermen, the landowner and English Nature. Each of these stakeholders was able to contribute to the project’s success for example by commenting on its design, or helping to understand the monitoring data collected. In return, they gained benefits from participating in the project, for example by gaining information. These relationships can be described as equitable – that is to say that each of the partners contributed and gained from their involvement in the project.
Relevance of “Building Trust with Communities” guidelines
The Horsey Island project was conceived in the mid-1990s, so it pre-dated the development of the Building Trust with Communities (BTwC). However, the logic of the systematic approach that it suggests is consistent with the process of stakeholder engagement adopted for the Horsey Island project.
General lessons for Environment Agency stakeholder engagement
There are two general lessons from the project’s experience with stakeholder engagement: It is likely that the competent authority (in this instance the Environment Agency)
will have repeated contact with the same sets of stakeholders on flood risk
management issues in target locations over prolonged time periods. It is therefore important to build up relationships with key stakeholders with a view to developing durable working partnerships that facilitate for example the sharing of resources. A degree of flexibility in project implementation for example by allowing
suggestions to be incorporated into project design can help develop relationships with stakeholders. Flexible implementation schedules can allow for time to be spent
winning over sceptical or concerned stakeholders and also helps convey a sense that plans are not set in stone and can be influenced.
Specific approaches and techniques for stakeholder engagement
There are two specific techniques used during the project that could be applied in similar contexts:
Sharing responsibility among a range of partners for promoting the project can build a broad base of support and reach diverse audiences. The Environment Agency worked with English Nature and Harwich Haven Harbour, which helped it to reach marine and conservation communities in the area. The expertise that these
organisations brought also provided additional credibility for the project. Meeting stakeholders on their terms and in settings that are familiar to them can
help improve communications and help build relationships. The occasional
meetings between Environment Agency staff and oystermen at sea while collecting monitoring data served a number of important purposes:
o it helped to authenticate the data that was collected;
o it demonstrated that the Environment Agency had taken stakeholders’ concerns about water quality seriously;
o it provided a neutral space where the oystermen could comfortably express their concerns.
Sources
Karen Thomas (Project Leader, Environment Agency) Joe Backhouse (Landowner, Horsey Island)
Appendix 3. Case study: Roach and Crouch Flood Management Strategy Background
The rationale for a long-term and strategic approach to flood risk management planning in Essex originated from a series of estuarine modelling studies carried out in the late 1990s. The Roach and Crouch Flood Risk Management Strategy (FRMS) was the first of seven FRMS studies in Essex and Suffolk covering eleven estuaries. The aim of the FRMS studies is to provide a strategic approach to the management of flood risk for the next 100 years within the estuaries. Each FRMS focuses on flood risk management, but also covers other issues that are of international, national and local importance. These include to: comply with the EU Habitats Directive; enhance biodiversity; minimise /mitigate negative impacts on sailing and navigational access within the estuary; and avoid negative impacts on water quality due to landfill materials located behind some of the sea defences.
The Essex and Suffolk strategies are being developed using a similar staged approach including: identify boundaries and data; develop a communication plan and identify potential consultees and interest parties; establish contemporary estuary and coastal processes; asset surveys; flood modelling; economic appraisal; develop preferred options with public consultation; and finalise and present the Strategy to the public. The Roach and Crouch FRMS is the first strategy to have completed all phases of development (except the public launch). The Strategy is currently awaiting approval from the Environment Agency Board. The Strategy recommends £80M of investment over the next 50 years6 and has a detailed 5 year plan of work worth £15M.
Within the 12,100ha of coastal floodplain surrounding the Roach and Crouch Estuary, there are a significant number of assets at risk of flood damage, including over 2,700 properties, 9,560ha of typically high-grade agricultural land and 168km of flood defences. There are many properties spread across the flood plain in small settlements, villages and in the principal towns of Burnham-on-Crouch, Rochford and South Woodham Ferrers. The Ministry of Defence is also a significant landowner.
Chronology
Late 1990s: The Essex Shoreline Management Plan (1999) and the Essex Seawall Strategy (1998) concluded that the Essex estuaries needed further investigation to understand the estuary processes, which led to the Essex FRMS.
2001: Work on the first of the Essex FRMS studies, the Roach and Crouch FRMS, begins and is driven by a project team comprising the Environment Agency and the project
consultant, Halcrow. The first stage focused on defining the immediate and potential risk of flooding to the land adjacent to the Roach and Crouch Estuary. This entailed an assessment of the condition of the existing defences, predicting the effects of sea level rise and natural estuary development on the existing flood defences and identifying how long the existing flood defences would remain effective. An initial baseline consultation was undertaken with all key consultees and interested parties in November 2001.
6 The latest guidance on Shoreline Management Plans recommends that strategies should now be appraised over a 100
year time-span. However, the Roach and Crouch Roach and Crouch FRMS was too advanced to take this new advice on board. A sensitivity analysis indicated that the preferred short-term options in the Strategy would not differ significantly if the
2002: The second stage defined the existing natural and human environment to provide a baseline. It also developed the strategic objectives and specific environmental objectives of the Roach and Crouch FRMS. A long list of generic flood risk management options were developed as part of the third stage. Key consultees and interested parties were consulted on the environmental baseline and the long list of generic options between May and July 2002. This was accompanied by the first in a series of information booklets. A technical review of the long-list of flood risk management options was undertaken against various criteria including construction complexity, cost, durability and effectiveness. This process reduced the number of flood risk management options to a short list which could be applied to any length of flood defence in the Roach and Crouch Estuary.
2003: Innovative estuary processes analysis techniques were developed based on salt marsh mapping, computer modelling of the tidal and river flows within the estuary and theoretical estuary shape analysis. In the fourth stage, the short list of generic flood risk management options were subjected to more detailed technical, economic and environmental analysis (using the framework of Strategic Environmental Assessment). This identified the draft preferred flood risk management options for the future management of the estuary. These were presented in a second information bulletin in August 2003. Key consultees, interested parties and members of the public were also consulted through public exhibitions and face-to-face meetings in September and December 2003.
2004: In the fifth and final stage issues raised during the consultation process were addressed, links were established with other initiatives in the area (e.g. the Wallasea Wetlands Creation Project), meetings were held with key consultees and interested parties and the final flood management Strategy document was developed for internal approval by the Environment Agency in 2005.
Measures taken to engage with key consultees and interested parties during the project
A Communication Plan was developed at the beginning of the project to define the communication objectives, methods and target audience. The target audience for
consultations were identified from postal data, existing membership of local groups and committees, and by asking key contacts to suggest additional consultees. The target audience was categorised according to their level of interest in the project and therefore their role in the consultation process: steering group member, statutory consultees, interested parties and the public. The project team verified this allocation by contacting organisations on the list to assess where they would fit in to the planned consultation programme.
A steering group was established to provide feedback on all aspects of project planning and implementation, and to provide guidance and advice on Government policy. The group comprised the Environment Agency’s project manager, catchment engineer and
conservation officer; Halcrow’s project manager; Defra; English Nature; Defence Estates; Crouch Harbour Authority; and a landowner representative (Country Landowners
Association and the National Farmers Union). The project formally started with a steering group meeting to discuss the data collected in the scoping exercise and get feedback on the planned consultation process. After this steering group meetings were convened at every key stage of project delivery to review progress and plan and agree how the next stage of the project would be delivered.
The consultee engagement process was structured around the staged approach to the project. A5 booklets (information bulletins) were published to coincide with the main project milestones to present project objectives, key issues, work undertaken to date and preferred options. Public workshops were timed to coincide with the two key consultations on the preferred flood risk management in the latter stages. A contingency was also made for newsletters, should specific issues arise that warranted wider public dissemination. Consultation on the draft preferred flood risk management options for the future
management of the estuary commenced in September 2003. This consultation stage was carried out over one week in geographically dispersed locations throughout the Strategy study area, to give everyone the opportunity to attend and participate. It comprised face-to-face meetings with key consultees in the morning followed by workshops with interested parties and the public between 1pm and 9pm. The face-to-face meetings were held with groups of key consultees from the following sectors: conservation, sailing and navigation, landowners, local authorities (county, borough and district) and key parishes. Attendance at each of the face-to-face meetings varied, but the combined turnout for meetings and workshops in September 2003 was approximately 400.
The project team gave presentations on how the Strategy had been developed and the preferred flood risk management options. A team of core staff from the Environment Agency and project consultant (project managers, coastal processes specialists, catchment engineers, and/or conservationists) were brought together for the face-to-face meetings and workshops in order to be able to answer the wide variety of questions that were expected from key consultees, interested parties and the public.
Posters were used to tell the story of how the Strategy was developed and present
information on climate change. Examples of re-alignment and foreshore recharge schemes were also displayed to improve understanding of the newer flood risk management options. People were asked to sign in so that a record of their attendance could be kept and used to update the consultee list. Tables and chairs were put out so that people could sit and fill out comment forms, which the project team later went through and responded to. Comments that included requests for changes to the Strategy and further information were given direct responses by the project team, while comments related to non-strategy issues were
forwarded to other Environment Agency staff to respond to. The project team felt that it was important to have a wide range of enthusiastic staff expertise on hand so that consultees were able to gain a positive experience from engaging with the relevant Environment Agency member of staff to respond to their specific concerns.
Benefits to consultees and the Environment Agency
Consultees benefited by being presented with a medium through which their concerns relating to flood risk management could be expressed. For example, Defra introduced the policy concept that the provision of flood defence by the Environment Agency was a privilege (and therefore discretionary) rather than a right (and statutory duty) in 2003. This was argued on economic grounds, posing a problem for rural coastlines like East Anglia’s where the prevalence of agricultural land means the value of the assets protected by the flood defences are lower than in more urban areas. Consequently, long-term sea wall
maintenance in some rural areas is uneconomic. This became a recurring issue at Roach and Crouch FRMS public meetings.
Landowners were also concerned about issues related to public rights of way. If they failed to maintain sea walls (as the withdrawal of the Environment Agency would make the landowner responsible for the defence), footpaths on top of defences might be lost leading to a conflict with the Highways Agency and potential high court action for failing to maintain designated rights of way. The introduction of a legal dimension meant that specialist advice was needed. The Environment Agency project manager held many meetings with local authorities and landowner groups in the summer of 2003 to get all of their concerns down in writing so they could be presented to the Environment Agency’s national policy and legal teams. An information leaflet for landowners to explain some of the issues was also produced and sent out in early 2006.
These concerns were passed on to Defra, which responded by issuing further guidance in 2004 by categorising sea walls under four headings: Economic (justifying future work on the defences due to value of assets); Uneconomic (but protecting internationally designated habitats); Uneconomic (but could have hydrodynamic or polluting consequences); and Uneconomic (all remaining defences where maintenance should be withdrawn).
The Environment Agency benefited by engaging with partners and other consultees and gaining access to additional resources and skills. For example, while the Strategy was being developed, a Defra led compensatory habitat creation scheme was developed for Wallasea Island in the centre of the Roach and Crouch Estuary. The Defra project manager and the Roach and Crouch FRMS project team agreed early on to share data and consultation opportunities to ensure that a “united front” was presented to the public (who in turn would benefit from having a clear sense of the relationship between the two initiatives). The Environment Agency benefited from this joint approach by reaching a wider audience as well as sharing data and consultee engagement costs. Defra benefited since the Roach and Crouch FRMS provided a strategic framework for the scheme, increasing the prospects of it being viewed favourably by planning authorities.
Impacts on perceptions of the Environment Agency
The Environment Agency gained a reputation for being a trusted facilitator of consultation processes. This was achieved by taking the concerns of consultee groups seriously and addressing them in a satisfactory manner. For example, while the project manager was presenting the Strategy at various meetings (including Local Flood Defence Committees (LFDC), National Farmers Union meetings), it became apparent that there was considerable interest in the proposed economic appraisal phase amongst local landowners. They were concerned that their land would be classified as having a low value, leading to the sea walls that protect their property being deemed uneconomic to maintain and therefore ineligible for investment for future maintenance. Landowners were also concerned that the Defra agricultural land classification system was out-dated (pre-war) and that modern machinery meant that land classed as heavy working land could be far more easily farmed today, increasing its value. The project team listened and retained a locally trusted land agent to prepare an independent classification and valuation of their land. The results showed that there was a correlation between the two agricultural land classification systems, and the
independent land valuation was adopted for the Strategy since it was based on recent land sales and local knowledge.
The cost of the land classification survey and valuation exercise cost approximately £3,000, however, this investment resulted in significant added value to the project and Environment Agency in terms of buy-in and trust from the landowning community. The Environment Agency had demonstrated that it was willing to listen to concerns and act on them. This was especially important in term of relations with landowners as the some of the preferred options presented in the Strategy (e.g. Managed Realignment) can only be constructed on their land.
Implementing Environment Agency systems and engagement with consultees
The Environment Agency has procedures in place to facilitate engagement with consultees, for example as demonstrated by the introduction of external relations officers and the development of the Building Trust with Communities resource materials. However, the culture of the organisation places greater emphasis on the technical aspects of project implementation. In this context, time and money tend to be allocated to engineering, and natural science orientated outputs rather than social and community based processes. In addition the support required to meet the demands of consultation (for example out of hours working and an at times hostile reception from the public) are not yet in place.
The experience gained on the Roach and Crouch FRMS demonstrates the need for adequate resources for engagement with consultees (these were not available at the outset, but
needed to be argued for as the project progressed). Assistance is required to help
Environment Agency staff make the most of limited budgets for consultation, for example using new techniques that emphasise technology and graphics.
Applying the lessons leant on engagement with consultees
The approach to engaging with consultees on the Roach and Crouch FRMS was intuitive, with the project manager responding to the needs of those consultees that wanted to be informed and have their say. This meant that the project process needed to be flexible, for example allowing for additional meetings and making provision for additional newsletters. Project managers have been willing to share their experiences and lessons learnt on
engaging with consultees within the Environment Agency; however, the dispersed nature of the organisation has made it difficult to disseminate important lessons.
Estimated costs of engaging with consultees
The overall costs of engaging with consultees on the Roach and Crouch FRMS have been based on the estimated average annual salary of Environment Agency and consultant staff members that assisted with engagement of £25,000. It has been estimated that Environment Agency staff were involved with consultation on the Roach and Crouch FRMS, over the five year period (2001-2005) as described below:
• 20 person days for developing a communications strategy
• 200 person days for stakeholder meetings and workshops
• 30 person days for drafting publicity materials
• 10 person days to meet the public (e.g. site visits)
This includes all Environment Agency staff and the consultant’s time (including the production of the Strategic Environmental Assessment7).
310 days person days in total x 7.5 hours@ £10/ hour8 = £23,2509 In addition:
• £3,000 for business support (e.g. press office advice and input)
• £20,000 for printing publicity (e.g. leaflets, brochures and newsletters)
• £1,000 for venues and field trips
• £1,000 for contingencies (e.g. additional information materials)
The project team also had to respond to issues raised by a persistent complainant in the Great Wakering area. It is estimated that dealing with the consequences of these complaints cost up to £10,000 in additional work and meetings (see below). An extra £3,000 was spent on financing an independent land value survey.
This gives an estimated cost of £61,250. If the cost of the £60,000 'Consultation and Liaison' Project Activity are added, this amounts to approximately 120,000. The overall Strategy cost just under £700,000 (Environment Agency, consultant and sub-consultant costs), so the communications and engagement with consultees amounted to approximately 17% of the project budget.
Effective elements of engaging with consultees
Using graphics: The first year of developing the Strategy comprised gathering data, using survey techniques to develop an understanding of how the estuary functions and
establishing the condition of the existing flood defences. The data was presented to the steering group using a variety of graphical representations, in particular an estuary map, which highlighted where computer modelling results were conclusive and where results were less certain. This enabled steering group members to add their ‘local’ knowledge to help build confidence in the results of the computer modelling.
The value of using graphical representations for presentation materials was demonstrated many times including a presentation of the final Strategy options to the steering group in 2004. Topographic maps were developed for each estuary flood compartment that showed land within specified elevation bands in different colours. These were used as visual aids to explain how the decision making process that led to the selection of the final Strategy options and how they could be constructed. The process revealed several new issues, which had not been identified in previous discussions. Reports are necessary but they are selective in terms of the information they present. A map and associated wide-ranging discussion about the locality can prompt some very useful contributions.
Using partners’ expertise: A Strategic Environmental Assessment was developed for the entire Roach and Crouch Estuary and this provided a framework for dialogue with partners
7 The cost of producing the SEA was £24.4k. However, only a small proportion of the production of the SEA covers consultation, and the majority of this work was undertaken as part of the 'Consultation and Liaison' Project Activity, which cost up to approximately £60k. These costs are not reflected in this estimate.
8 £30,000 / (365x7.5) = 9 x 1.16 (Environment Agency on costs) = £10.00/ hour
