Retreating coastline, retreating government? Managing sea level rise in an age of austerity

Recent trends in governance in England, UK – exemplified by the notion of the ‘Big Society’ and the 2011 Localism Act – have seen local communities and individuals encouraged to take greater responsibility for public policy issues that were previously seen as largely or exclusively state-led. This paper examines a case study where this localism presumption has been applied to estuary flood defence and considers the appropriateness of local- or community-based initiatives in dealing with sea level rise. We examine the Alde and Ore Estuary, Suffolk, England, UK, where the state has retreated as the main decision-maker for climate change adaptation and consider the impacts of this change in governance approach. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with local actors focusing on: a) perceptions of the governance of flood defence plans, b) the legitimacy of decisions reached, and c) social equity linked with localism. We find that there is a limit to what can be devolved down to local communities in the absence of structure, guidelines, funding or supervision provided by state actors. It is unrealistic that responsibility for problems such as flood defence, involving complex trade-offs; issues of public safety and public expenditure; and protection of natural assets be devolved so comprehensively to local communities without substantial co-leadership. State actors still need to co-lead and provide a link between the local scale and the national and international policy scales and to facilitate a broader sense of vision for future landscapes. Without transparent co-led processes involving a broad range of actors in the local community and state bodies, decisions made regarding flood defence initiatives may be perceived by local people to lack legitimacy. Without an independent arbiter involved in project planning and decision-making, disagreements may dissolve into intractable disputes that damage project credibility and hamper or even paralyze practical progress. Without compensation schemes that acknowledge that any flood defence plan will mean some local people lose out, some are likely to vigorously resist change, hampering progress. It will also be necessary to ensure a focus on inter-generational equity so that current generations do not deflect costs onto later generations, for whom costs may be higher and decisions more difficult.