Fairbourne Coastal Risk Management Learning Project

This article is an abridged version of the original text, which can be downloaded from the right-hand column. Please access the original text for more detail, research purposes, full references, or to quote text.

Introduction

Fairbourne is a small community village in the ward of Arthog in Gwynedd of approximately 420 residential and business properties. Rising sea levels mean that much of the village of Fairbourne would be below normal high tide levels within the next 50 years. A key driver for this project was learning from the experience of Fairbourne to better understand how to plan for and manage climate change and adaptation. The two principal aims of the research were:

• To undertake a reflection and review of the effect and impact on the Fairbourne community in relation to the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP2) policy and related engagement activities to date
• To work alongside the engagement activities of the Fairbourne Moving Forward (FMF) initiative, in a “critical friend” role, providing insights and learning to the on-going planning, research and decision-making and implementation of engagement activities in Fairbourne

The report is intended for the Welsh Government, Gwynedd Council and the Fairbourne community, including local stakeholders. It may also be of interest to other coastal authorities in Wales and elsewhere, as well as to UK Government and the devolved administrations.

Context

Fairbourne is currently defended from the sea on both its estuarine and coastal frontages. Rising sea levels mean that much of the village of Fairbourne would be below normal high tide levels within the next 50 years. The relevant SMP2 policies for the area from 2055 to 2105 advocate realigning the current defences which may require the village to relocate or move back to a safer location. The SMP2 policy for Ro Wen Coast and Fairbourne Embankment was to ‘Hold the Line’ to 2025, ‘Managed Realignment’ to 2055, and ‘No Active Intervention’ to 2105. SMP2 reflected the understanding that it would not be viable to maintain the current standard of protection from flooding and erosion indefinitely. This placed Fairbourne in a unique position as one of the first UK communities to be identified as requiring long-term relocation due to climate risk, bringing with it a range of social, political and economic challenges that extend well beyond coastal engineering.

Methodology

The project was iterative and focused on action research. The research was identified by Welsh Government as a ‘Learning Project’ to help build good relations and trust with stakeholders. Research questions were developed relating to the objectives and focusing on the reflection and review, and critical friend aspects of the work.

Research approaches included:

• literature review,
• stakeholder mapping,
• residents’ survey,
• interviews with key stakeholders,
• three focus groups,
• review of website material, and
• dialogue.

Outputs produced during this stage were: Reflection and Review Learning Bulletin (2016) and Interim Report (2017). The combination of these methods allowed the researchers not only to capture lived experience within the community but also to test governance and decision-making processes in real time, offering a rare longitudinal perspective on adaptation planning.

Findings

The research highlighted a broad range of actual, potential and perceived impacts around well-being, health, community cohesion, social justice and understanding. The Reflection and Review Learning Bulletin identified some forty learning points across four key themes:

Approach to Engagement

A key finding was that Fairbourne’s involvement in developing SMP2 and its associated policies had a wide range of shortcomings. Many residents felt the engagement process created confusion, anxiety and mistrust, with a lack of clear communication on what the policies meant in practice. For Fairbourne specifically, the stakeholder engagement strategy had limited integration with or influence over the latter stages of the SMP2 plan preparation process. It appeared to focus on consultation rather than genuine engagement. Priority stakeholders were not consulted sufficiently early on in the process and there was some confusion around roles and responsibilities for public decision-making.

Impacts on the Community

They highlighted a broad range of actual, potential and perceived impacts around well-being, health, community cohesion, social justice and understanding. Potential impacts identified included a reduction in property values, business viability and tourism, blight, increased stress and anxiety, and limited capacity to address the issues. The socio-economic assessment developed an initial consideration and baseline of the potential social impacts that could result from a future decommissioning of Fairbourne. Residents also reported concerns about their ability to insure, sell or pass on properties, leading to insecurity and heightened vulnerability within the community.

Feedback indicated that the draft SMP2 and the May 2011 public meeting were “too little too late,” with many residents learning of the process and its consequences for the first time. Fieldwork identified impacts including reduced property values, business viability and tourism, blight, stress and anxiety, and limited community capacity to respond. Retrospective analysis suggested contention and conflict were inevitable, outcomes uncertain, and data open to challenge, highlighting that engagement should start early, be thorough, and properly resourced. Initial responses from the community did not reflect the seriousness of SMP2 as the plan was highly technical and inaccessible, while media “headline-grabbing re-interpretation” further fuelled misunderstandings. Although Defra’s engagement processes were followed, they did not adequately support foreseeable policy consequences or meaningfully engage the community.

Governance and Decision-Making

This research found that whilst the SMP2 engagement process was consistent with other SMPs, for the local community it was not apparent who was taking responsibility for stakeholder engagement, either locally or strategically. Interview feedback highlighted that “it’s not clear where decision making lies. It’s more an outline document; less on what should happen and who should be doing the work. Who’s going to pay and who’s going to authorise is not laid out in the SMP2.”

In 2013, the Fairbourne Moving Forward (FMF) Project Board was established with representation from Gwynedd Council, NRW, Welsh Government, Arthog Community Council, emergency services and other key stakeholders. The establishment of the Board was a positive step, signalling that the implications of SMP2 required a more coordinated, multi-agency and collaborative approach, including community representation. However, ensuring that the community was well represented and engaged at Board level was contentious, as interviews suggested that the role and remit of the Community Council was unclear and its capacity to lead engagement was limited.

Learning Bulletin 1 and Learning Bulletin 2 further explored how engagement influenced decision-making, noting that understanding governance processes and the researchers’ “critical friend” role helped to shape constructive dialogue between local residents, service providers and decision-makers.

Project Resources

The bulletin also pointed to concerns about project resources and capacity. Limited availability of financial and human resources was seen as constraining the ability of agencies and the community to plan effectively for the future. This lack of resourcing made it difficult to sustain engagement, provide consistent communication, and deliver tangible outcomes that could reduce uncertainty for residents.

Conclusions and lessons learned

Critical friend assessment/ action learning

Action learning has largely been informal, through dialogue, challenge and collective problem-solving. The project team has worked throughout with local stakeholders to discuss, understand and consider the implications of the various research outputs. Headline issues identified through the action research included governance, accountability, infrastructure understanding, socio-economic engagement, decision pathways and succession planning. Ownership of the Masterplan is critical to its success; fundamentally this plan must “belong” to the community rather than be something that is done to it. Understanding infrastructure – getting to the bottom of what is present, how it is managed and where the vulnerabilities lie – will be essential. Engagement of the socio-economic sectors has been slow, and succession-planning is becoming more critical the longer the project runs for.

Lessons for similar research projects conducted in the future

The research methodology involved a range of primary and secondary, quantitative and qualitative approaches, combining independent evidence with passionate and emotive views. The critical friend role required the project team to become well known by the Fairbourne community and to earn its trust in order to obtain candid views. It was important to get to know the community, but also to maintain impartiality and objectivity throughout. The key lesson for similar research is to allow a lot of time for engagement and observation – face to face time and dialogue is essential.

Lessons for Fairbourne

At the point of reporting, FMF was still a collective with no formally established terms of reference. The Masterplan needed greater visibility and the community as a whole still needs to be able to provide greater input. Gwynedd Council, in collaboration with FMF stakeholders, should prepare and agree an engagement plan to underpin ongoing engagement work. Utilities and infrastructure providers, along with social, health and welfare providers, need to better engage with the masterplanning process. Succession-planning is critical to the success of this project, given the risk of over-reliance on a small number of people. A sufficiently detailed engagement plan is an essential next step at this critical point in the development of the Masterplan.

Lessons for application elsewhere

There are clear points to take forward into any review of SMPs, especially surrounding the policies of No Active Intervention (NAI) or Managed Realignment (MR) where they impact on communities. It is recommended that the earlier published engagement guidance for SMP development is reviewed and the learning points incorporated. Governance and decision-making has emerged as a key area of concern, with the Fairbourne project breaking new ground and linking directly to the Well-being of Future Generations legislation and the role of PSBs. There needs to be further consideration of how PSBs can play an active role in oversight and championing of climate change adaptation planning across Wales. The analysis and findings from this learning project are intended to provide a basis for wider and ongoing discussion and understanding to support adaptive coastal risk management.

Citation

Welsh Government. 2019. Fairbourne Coastal Risk Management Learning Project. Cardiff: Welsh Government. https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2019-12/fairbourne-coastal-risk-management-learning-project.pdf