HOT TOPICS

SOCIAL JUSTICE - ON THE ROCKS

Harriet Greene* highlights the rough justice that is leaving the disadvantaged at risk.

Social justice is a notion enshrined in many definitions of sustainable development. The UK Government defines sustainable development on the basis of five key principles, the second of which is 'ensuring a strong, healthy and just society'. Social justice itself could, perhaps, be defined as the optimal situation where all individuals have the same core social rights, responsibilities, opportunities and benefits.

Sustainable development requires decision-makers to balance economic, environmental and social impacts through time. Work to mainstream social considerations into decision-making has developed over the last six years, shown not least by the fact that the Scottish and Welsh Governments now have ministers responsible specifically for social justice. According to a report produced for Defra's Sustainable Development Research Network there is growing evidence that environmental injustice is a considerable problem in the UK, affecting the most deprived communities and socially-excluded groups.

The example of coastal flooding and erosion illustrates the extent of the challenge faced in developing socially-just outcomes. Flood and coastal defence operating authorities, such as local councils and the Environment Agency, only have discretionary powers to undertake works to manage flood or coastal erosion risk. This means that in most situations they have no legal obligation to construct or continue to maintain coastal defences. In practice, over a third of the coastline of England and Wales is protected by defences and authorities utilise a host of tools for managing flood and coastal erosion risk in order to reduce the risk to people, property and the environment. But government funding is limited and only schemes with highest priority receive grant aid from Defra.

People living in large, thriving, urban areas are likely to continue to benefit from defences because the economic, social and political consequences of removing defences would be catastrophic. Conversely, it is often uneconomic to protect small rural coastal communities from the risk of flooding and erosion with costly engineering structures because the assets protected are valued at less than the cost of protection. Indeed, with climate change, maintaining the current line of defence in these areas will become increasingly unsustainable. Managed realignment (where the coastline is allowed to retreat or advance with management that controls or limits movement), will be a more sustainable alternative in many places.
People who lose land or homes as a result of managed realignment are unlikely to receive any compensation for their loss unless the land has 'quantifiable beneficial use' after inundation.

Compensation is an emotive issue for coastal communities. Many see the current compensation policy as unjust as, whilst there is a legal obligation to provide birds with compensatory habitat (when Natura 2000 designated habitat is lost due to managed realignment), homeowners receive no such compensation. They argue that in return for providing a public benefit (sustainable coastal management) they should receive payment from the public purse. The same argument could be made by campaigners in north Norfolk where the policy is not to intervene actively and maintain defences. A coastal campaign group there says it will try to stall the adoption of a revised Shoreline Management Plan, '. . . until social justice is built into it' (1).

Homeowners disadvantaged by current flood and coastal erosion risk management policies believe that the Government is not playing fair and that it has changed the unwritten rule that once defended, a settlement is always defended. That they are given no compensation for property loss if defences are realigned or not maintained, adds insult to injury and in their view is positively unjust.

Not everyone agrees, however, that these homeowners should receive compensation. There are concerns that providing compensation would distort the flood risk insurance market and also create a precedent for victims of other types of natural disasters. It could also be seen as rewarding financially the naive decision of people to purchase property where there is a known risk. 

Is it just that homeowners receive compensation? Or does the discretionary nature of flood and coastal defence powers already deliver a just outcome? Whatever is decided, an important part of social justice is explaining how and why a decision was made so that justice can be seen to be done. Using the coastal example, many coastal homeowners do not understand the distinction between the different situations in which managed realignment takes place and why compensation is payable in some (albeit limited) circumstances but not others. This needs to change.

Another dimension to the problem of coastal flooding and erosion is the social distribution of flood risk. Research for the Environment Agency has shown that there are eight times more people from the most deprived wards in England living in the tidal floodplain, compared with those from the least deprived wards (2). This could be magnified as the risk of coastal flooding increases due to climate change. The National Trust has warned that the consequence of not assisting those living in 'at risk' areas is that those who can afford to manage their risk by relocating will do so, potentially leaving the less well-off behind in ghetto communities.

When coastal flooding causes damage to properties and their contents, the consequences are likely to be worse for the less well-off as lack of insurance is a significant problem amongst these groups. Dealing with the aftermath of a flood event can also be particularly difficult for the elderly who may find the experience stressful. In the event of needing temporary or permanent relocation they may require more exacting accommodation such as adapted housing or housing in proximity to healthcare services. Coastal locations are popular retirement locations. In England and Wales the six districts with the highest percentage of residents at retirement age are all coastal localities.

If social justice is to be embedded into government environmental policies a better understanding of how environmental risks are socially distributed is required. Under the Aarhus Convention EU citizens have the right to participate in environmental decision-making. Engaging those who are disproportionately at risk or disadvantaged should deliver a more socially just outcome.

One innovative development has been the new well-being powers for local authorities. These wide-ranging powers, given under the Local Government Act 2000, enable local authorities to undertake almost anything (within their remit and which is not prohibited elsewhere) to promote social, economic and environmental well-being in their communities. In Wakefield the well-being power has been used to acquire houses on a run-down estate and provide reasonable recompense to the residents and owners. It enabled the swift redevelopment of the site without having to go through the lengthy compulsory purchase order process (3).

Such measures could be considered for compensating homeowners who face loses as a result of managed realignment, but greater awareness of these powers and how they can be implemented, is needed urgently. A recent Government report (3) into their take-up found that understanding rarely trickled down further than the local authority's senior officials and lawyers - not those who could be using the powers in their everyday work to make sustainable communities possible.

References

1. Downes, S. (2006a) Anger over coastal defence document. Eastern Daily Press, 3 July 2006

2. Walker, G.P et al (2003) cited in Policy Studies Institute (2004) Environment and Social Justice: Rapid Research and Evidence Review. 8 December 2004. Sustainable Development Research Network. Policy Studies Institute, London. p82

3. Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) Formative Evaluation of the Take-Up and Implementation of the Well Being Power. Annual Report 2006. July 2006

*Harriet Greene is a Policy Researcher at CIWEM.

CIWEM's briefing report, 'Taking Managed Realignment Forward as a Policy Option for Coastal Management in England and Wales,' is available at www.ciwem.org/resources.