Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
tion of those at risk are flooded by 'other people's
runoff', this would argue for the application of
a second model - the 'polluter pays' principle.
However, in most countries, a third model is
adopted: most or all of the costs of flood risk
management are paid for by the general taxpayer.
This means that the general taxpayer is an im-
portant stakeholder in the decision process. There
is empirical evidence, moreover, that the public at
large is prepared to pay to protect others (Shabman
et al. 1998). The underlying question is, then, why
is the public prepared to contribute rather
than seeking the applicationof the beneficiary pays
or polluter pays principles? Unfortunately, as
North (1990) observed, these are not questions to
which economics has as yet any theoretical or
practical answers. It also means that neoclassical
economics, by focusing upon how much the
beneficiary is prepared to pay in order to gain the
benefit, is addressing the wrong question.
The role of the 'expert' is also changed: whereas
engineers and economists used to talk in terms
of determining the optimum solution, this is no
longer appropriate. It is now the stakeholders who
have the responsibility to determine which is the
most appropriate option. Moreover, it can be ar-
gued that it was always inappropriate for 'experts'
to claim to determine the optimum solution, that
this should always have been the responsibility of
politicians since they are elected for the purpose of
making societal choices. The nature of these chan-
ged roles has yet to be worked out: how science
can best be used for informed decision-making
(Defra 2006).
Similarly, a technology manifests social rela-
tions. Therefore, changing what we do implies
a change in the appropriate nature of social
relationships. Making such a change is an expres-
sion of power.
Thus, a contested area is what ought to be the
relationship between the individual and the col-
lective, an argument that underlies the arguments
as to the nature of substantive justice (Pettit 1980).
There are two quite different conceptualizations
in France and Germany. The preamble to the
Constitution of France asserts that:
S12 La
Nation proclame la solidarit ´ et l'egalit ´ de tous
les Fran
c
ais devant les charges qui resultent des
calamit ´ s nationales». This is in contrast to the
recent Flood Law in Germany, which has a much
greater emphasis upon the individual responsibil-
ity of those at risk: 'Within the bounds of possi-
bility and reasonability, any person potentially
affected by a flood is obliged to undertake adequate
measures to prevent flood-related risks and to
reduce flood damage, particularly to adjust the
land use to a possible risk created for humans, the
environment or material assets through floods'
(Article 31 S2 Act to Improve Preventive Flood
Control 2005). The French approach implies state
intervention, large-scale engineering works, and
compensation for the losses experienced in floods.
Conversely, the newGerman law implies a greater
emphasis on floodproofing, resilient and robust
construction, land use controls and flood warn-
ings, and also commercially based insurance.
Thus, the debate between 'structural' and 'non-
structural' flood risk management strategies is at
least as much about what ought to be the relevant
social relationships as it has been about the effec-
tiveness of different strategies. To the extent to
which the debate is presented as purely a technical
question, it is misrepresented.
One key aspect of social relationships is: who
should pay for flood risk management? The
Germanmodel reflects the 'beneficiary pays' prin-
ciple. That approach is itself in part a reflection of
the neo-liberal ideology that seeks to diminish the
role of the collective and exalt the role of
the individual. It specifically seeks to minimize
the role of the state. But, since a significant frac-
Stakeholder Engagement as a Process
Stakeholder engagement has to be done and done
successfully. It is clearly a process; it is equally
obviously a social process; and we have argued
above that it must be a learning process through
which the stakeholders seek to resolve the con-
flicts that make the choice necessary and become
confident that one option ought to be preferred
above all others. Thus, stakeholder engagement
is increasingly understood in the form of 'social
