Originally published 6 November 2007. This article is retained from the tCI archive. Law, policy or practice may have changed since publication.
Our thoughts this week are undoubtedly with tens of thousands of residents in Gloucestershire and elsewhere, who, as this topic is being written are flooded out, without drinking water, and maybe without electricity. A month ago it was Hull and Sheffield; a few years ago it was York and Carlisle.
So how much discussion has there been in these communities about the nature of the risk they face, and how local public bodies should respond? Of course, it is understood that the Environment Agency leads on the issue, but there are a large number of Fire & Rescue Authorities who have a critical role when the worst happens. Under a 2003 Fire Service circular, they also have a duty to prepare an Integrated Risk Management Plan and this is normally subject to consultation.
So is there evidence that towns and villages have genuinely engaged on this issue? Have they been consulted on the priorities when flooding happens? Has there been dialogue on who does what? What will householders or business owners do for themselves ...and what has to be left for emergency services? Sadly, such evidence is not always convincing, but now is hardly the time for nit-picking. It does, however highlight a wider problem – that we often consult about easy issues rather than hard choices. Spending public money on flood prevention, for example means spending less on something else. Using pumping equipment to protect a water treatment plant may mean not safeguarding an electricity sub-station! These are not theoretical dilemmas; emergency staffs are wrestling with such choices as you read this Topic.
Their decisions might not be very different even if the community has been thoroughly consulted on these matters. But every public official can approach the job with greater confidence if he or she knows that local opinion understands the issues, and have sought consensus on key priorities. This becomes particularly important when significant change is afoot. Without community support, managing change is so much harder!
A well-managed community dialogue becomes an essential ingredient, both as a means of public education and equally importantly – an opportunity for stakeholder and consultee views to be heard and good ideas considered.
The number of agencies doesn’t help, and the public can be forgiven for not knowing the difference between one body’s plan and another. If ever there was a case for Comprehensive Engagement Strategies – as the White Paper proposes – this is it. Such an approach should help address cross-cutting issues – of which this week’s floods are an example.
They will also help tackle important issues that are not so immediately apparent. Flooding is not the only hazard that is invisible until it happens, and where the challenge is how to manage increased risk. Without public bodies helping to put these matters on the agenda, our out-of-sight:out-of-mind mentality fuels an ostrich-like reluctance to face up to difficult issues and even more difficult decisions.
One of the greatest strengths of consultation is that, when done to best practice standards, it encourages individuals and interest groups to engage seriously on important issues. Emergencies such as this can change people’s perspectives of what is really critical; a full meaningful debate on these issues is therefore a key part of the response.
Trigger points
- Does your consultation programme reflect what’s really important?
- How well has your local area been consulted on emergency services?
- Learn more about Comprehensive Engagement Strategies by attending one of our training courses on this important topic.
This is the90th Tuesday Topic; a full list of subjects covered is available for Institute members and is a valuable resource covering so many aspects of consultation and engagement