Power, Partnership and Participation: Engaging Communities and Community Assets

1. Community Assets – Delivering on the Potential? Roundtable, Inverness, 23 November 2010 Power, Partnership and Participation:Engaging Communities and Community Assets Michael Woods Aberystwyth University

2. The new rural development paradigm “Rural development is not just about ‘new things’ being added to established situations. It is about newly emerging and historically rooted realities that are currently reappearing as rural development experiences avant la lettre. Rural development policies should focus on strengthening proven constellations and supporting emergence of new ones. A particularly decisive element will be the combination of the ‘old’ with the ‘new’” Van der Ploeg et al. (2000) in Sociologia Ruralis, p 400

3. ‘Old’ paradigm Inward investment Top-down planning Sectoral modernization Financial capital Exploitation of nature Transport infrastructure Production Industrialization Social modernization Convergence ‘New’ paradigm Endogenous development Bottom-up innovation Integrated development Social capital Sustainable development Information infrastructure Consumption Small niche industries Valorization of tradition Local embeddedness The new rural development paradigm Source: Woods (2010) Rural, p 140

4. TANGIBLE ASSETS Natural Land Minerals Forestry Water Wind Wildlife

5. TANGIBLE ASSETS Natural Land Minerals Forestry Water Wind Wildlife Achieved Property & buildings Livestock Financial capital

6. TANGIBLE ASSETS INTANGIBLE ASSETS Natural Land & landscape Minerals Forestry Water Wind Wildlife Cultural Heritage Tradition Folk culture Achieved Property & buildings Livestock Financial capital

7. TANGIBLE ASSETS INTANGIBLE ASSETS Natural Land & landscape Minerals Forestry Water Wind Wildlife Cultural Heritage Tradition Folk culture Environmental Tranquillity Carbon sequestration Biodiversity Achieved Property & buildings Livestock Financial capital

8. TANGIBLE ASSETS INTANGIBLE ASSETS Natural Land & landscape Minerals Forestry Water Wind Wildlife Cultural Heritage Tradition Folk culture Environmental Tranquillity Carbon sequestration Biodiversity Achieved Property & buildings Livestock Financial capital Human Skills Enthusiasm Cooperation

9. ASSET-BASED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TANGIBLE ASSETS INTANGIBLE ASSETS Natural Land & landscape Minerals Forestry Water Wind Wildlife Cultural Heritage Tradition Folk culture Environmental Tranquillity Carbon sequestration Biodiversity Achieved Property & buildings Livestock Financial capital Human Skills Enthusiasm Cooperation

10. ASSET-BASED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TANGIBLE ASSETS INTANGIBLE ASSETS Natural Land & landscape Minerals Forestry Water Wind Wildlife Cultural Heritage Tradition Folk culture Environmental Tranquillity Carbon sequestration Biodiversity Power Participation Partnership Achieved Property & buildings Livestock Financial capital Human Skills Enthusiasm Cooperation

11. Benefits of approach • Reduced dependency on external investment and reduced vulnerability to external decision-making • Increased retention of wealth generated in the locality • Maintenance of local culture and traditions, and environmental sustainability • Empowerment of local communities with control over development paths and projects

12. Three challenges • Defining the ‘community interest’ • Bringing communities together in inclusive partnerships • Reflexivity in rural development

13. Complex communities • Assumption of geographically-coherent communities able to express a singular view or set of interests • Rural communities have always been more dynamic and diverse than popularly assumed • Rural communities have become more complex with greater mobility and social and economic restructuring

14. Complex communities • Different members of community may value community assets differently • Different viewpoints on the enrolment of community assets in development projects • Internal opposition to the valorization of community assets

16. Them vs. Us? • Local support out-shouted by non-local opposition?

17. Them vs. Us? • Local support out-shouted by non-local opposition? • Defensive localism against exploitation by large transnational companies?

18. Them vs. Us? • Local support out-shouted by non-local opposition? • Defensive localism against exploitation by large transnational companies? • Antipathy towards landowners and sections of community gaining financially from schemes

19. Community betrayal? “during foot and mouth, when it was acting as a community he was obviously very happy for the community to be round helping him, and now he’s gone and he’s now having wind turbines on his land, and people feel very, very betrayed by that”. Windfarm campaigner, Devon

20. Camddwr

21. Camddwr

22. Opposition to community-led wind energy schemes “Community-led or owned schemes have had to wrestle with [local opposition] alongside the largest commercial wind energy projects, albeit often with greater difficulty in funding the necessary advice and support.” Munday, Bristow & Cowell, forthcoming in Journal of Rural Studies

23. Different community attachments Natives: Long-standing family attachments to place Investors: Made financial and emotional investment in joining community Pilgrims: Return repeatedly to places of personal emotional importance

24. Different community attachments Sensuous: e.g. as a site of solitude or tranquillity Performed: Stage for performed actions that articulate a sense of identity, e.g. crofting, hunting. Communal: Site of interaction, evoking security, belonging, solidarity. Symbolic: Represents wider values or meanings, e.g. Scottish national identity.

25. Source: ‘Grassroots Rural Protest and Political Activity in Britain’, ESRC Grant RES-000-23-1317, M. Woods, J. Anderson. S. Guilbert, S. Watkin.

26. Windfarm opponents

27. Community wind energy project

28. Community dynamics • Issues of ownership and financial benefit are important in shaping attitudes towards asset valorization, but do not fully explain community responses • Consensus on valorizing community assets requires an understanding of the emotional dynamics of belonging and sense of place within the community

29. Managing Community Development • Participation in community development • Who gets empowered? • Issues of accountability and inclusion • Harnessing the intangible human assets of the community

30. Example: Tapping Skills “The community centre – that’s brought a lot more people out, professional people who’ve come out and said, ‘well, we can help you with fundraising; we can help you with drawing up plans for the internal remodeling, for things that you might need to do to extend’. When the need is there, people come forward…. Retired professionals from various industries, from construction industry, from management, from fundraising. I mean, we’ve got one chap, lives locally, who worked for the Lotteries grant board for quite a while and he’s helping us put together an application for Lottery funding.” (Councillor, Winchcombe) Source: ‘Participation, Power and Rural Community Governance in England and Wales’, ESRC Grant L215252052, M. Woods, B. Edwards, J. Anderson. G. Gardner, E. Fahmy.

31. Example: Superficial empowerment “People came into the town in 1995, they immediately started to take on all the key roles, and then they created themselves into a role, and one of the things you will be asking yourself today is, there is this regeneration partnership, how did this regeneration partnership come about, do I, as a member of the public, know who the members of this regeneration partnership is, no I do not know, have we ever been talked to about this regeneration partnership, no.” (Community activist A, England) “Some incomers moved in and took over the Development Trust, but some of the oldcomers wouldn’t go and [laughs] sat there very firmly um…and so it was closed down, the Development Trust, prematurely, and they started the single regeneration company.” (Community activist B, England)

32. Challenge of community development • Combining the individual drive of (social) entrepreneurship • …with a responsibility to collective engagement and ownership • Visionary leadership • Mechanisms for inclusive planning and governance • Transparency and accountability in the management of financial earnings from asset valorization • Need for stable structures and partnerships • Ability to engage professionally with different scales

33. “the ostensibly ‘local’ nature of community renewable energy inevitably involves negotiating with and coordinating complex networks of regulatory institutions and actors at wider spatial scales. One of just three community-owned wind farms operating in Wales at the time of our research was the Bro Dyfi Community Renewables Ltd, with two single turbine schemes, each developed and owned wholly by the Dyfi Valley community. The development of this small scale project benefited from a stable end-user contract and good rates of return (with the supportive Centre for Alternative Technology near Machynlleth) and proponents were able to draw upon existing community knowledge of green energy, and possessed the skills to access EU aid.” Munday, Bristow and Cowell, forthcoming in Journal of Rural Studies

34. Reflexive rural development • Knowing the community and its dynamics • Building a collective understanding of community assets and their potential • Agreeing a consensual way forward • Repeatedly referring back to the community and reflecting on progress and outcomes

35. Reflexive rural development • Learning as a community • Sharing specialist knowledge and expertise in collective problem-solving • Drawing appropriately on external resources and assistance www.derreg.eu

36. Rural Learning Regions Dirk Roep & Wiebke Wellbrock

37. Westerkwartier

39. Dirk Roep & Wiebke Wellbrock • Local organisations: • AVN • Vereiniging Gr. Dorpen • Boeren & Natuur S.W. • Abel Tasman Kabinet • VVV Leek • SBB • Gr. Landschap • Examples of • Networks/Initiatives: • Biomass • Wichterwest • MEI • Dwarsdiep ‘region’ Communal house WSI Integrated Dev. Pro. Wstkwtier Regio Lokket LAG Countryside Exchange Touristic promoters Brug Toekomst Atelier Steering Group Groningen West EU LNV OWC Public funded Research, Education & Advice Example: GKC A-programme (Regional Transition) Education Research Advice Knowledge Institutes (public funded) & Agencies ‘public administration’ ‘knowledge’

40. Brug Toekomst • ‘Bridge to the Future’ • Exchange of (local) knowledge to support sustainable development • Established by Wageningen University and Van Hall-Larenstein University • Universities acted as facilitators of knowledge exchange and discussion between local actors • Collective learning about the region and its potential & identification of priorities • Led to creation of the ‘Westerkwartier Initiative Group’ (WSI)

41. MEI project • ‘Environment, Energy and Innovation’ • Knowledge sharing platform for farmers • Collaboration of Aves-Tura (a consultancy company), LEADER, regional and local government and farm organizations • Delivery of ‘social learning’ tools to encourage farmers to think about opportunities, including sustainable energy production

42. Biomass project • Initial stages of development • Stimulate cooperation between farmers and organizations involved with nature conservation and land management • Using ‘biomass’ produced by landowners, water boards and farmers as an energy source as a community project • Emerging from the process of ‘regional learning’ • Building on established collaborations, but also looking to draw in additional partners with technical expertise (e.g. Groningen University)

43. Conclusions • Issues of power, participation and partnership are essential to the successful valorization of community assets • ‘Community ownership’ is more than a legal condition • Financial benefits alone may not be sufficient to ensure community support • Process of engaging and understanding the community and building consensus • Communities ‘learning to do together’