Conectividad y accesibilidad

COUNCIL'S ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY COORDINATOR

the Middlesbrough Environment City (MEC) Manager and a clerical officer have always been employed by the Council (in the Director o f Public Protection's Department). They have been assisted by seconded staff from ICI, in particular, but also from NE Electricity and National Westminster Bank. At a time when the end o f the Urban Funding was approaching, a Manager left, however, and the Council was not prepared to appoint a new Manager. An early retiring ICI secondee was, therefore, given the responsibility for about a year.

Being so dependent on the Council for accommodation and core staffing there was, thus, no real sense in which successive Managers of the MEC office were independent of the Council. This is in spite of the fact that, from the outset, some attempt to provide a feeling of independence from the Borough Council was made by securing an office base in an MBC park depot remote from the Town Hall. At the same time as feeling constrained by their dependence on the Council, however, the unit has been very ill equipped to tackle such a major initiative. It has had very few staff and little commitment from many other MBC officers and councillors. There was, thus, a feeling of having been marginalised, even abandoned rather than having been given independence. The fact that none of the Managers had the ability / will to win greater financial and decision-making independence from the Council helped to prevent MEC from 'breaking out* of its insider prisoner group position. MEC got off to a bad start, partially because the first Manager was not well thought of and had long periods of sick leave. Similarly, the second did not enjoy wide support. Staffing continued to be very tight and had a temporary feel, especially because secondments were so heavily relied on. Even now, at officer level, MEC is led on a temporary basis by MBC's Environmental Sustainability Officer. Rather than a unit designed to drive such a major shift of behaviour and attitude in all that the Council and its partners do, the office has been more on the scale of those used to run anti-litter or anti-dog fouling campaigns.

The aim of MEC was given as '..to enhance the social and economic well-being of Middlesbrough through ensuring sustainable actions which stimulate local innovation and awareness, promote effective sustainable development and achieve national and

international recognition.’34 To lead the achievement of this, the Env ironment City Board was, on the face of it. set up very much along the lines of the 'model'. It had 13 members chaired by a councillor who was also a local 'environmental champion'. Other members included representatives of Teesside Tomorrow, Cleveland County Council and the Chamber of Commerce. A smaller Executive Group, to deal with the more routine business of MEC, was chaired by the Chief Public Protection Officer. In the early days, the distinction between the Board and the Executive, however, was blurred with overlapping functions. In 1995, it was, therefore, agreed that the former should concentrate on policy issues and meet every 4 months and the that the latter would meet every 2 months to deal with the day to day operations and support the SWGs. Unfortunately, by 1995, both had failed to meet with any regularity. Enthusiasm had fallen off and the management of MEC was, in effect, being run by the small MEC office with some support from a few committed officers in the Public Protection Department including the Director. There was no firmly established organisation such as Leicester's Environ and few champions in any position to influence decision-making in favour of MEC and its aims.

The brief of the Board (the 'EC Forum') demonstrated the narrow view which was taken of MEC from the beginning. It was barely consistent with Ward's environmental broad agenda.

It was essentially inward looking and concerned more with the environmental amenity of the Borough rather than with 'saving the Earth'. Only some promotional aims extended beyond the Borough. The Board's mission was given as (Middlesbrough's EC Bid Document, 1992: 5):

Generally, to work in partnership to improve the environment of the Borough of Middlesbrough and, in particular, aims:

a) To seek to promote the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources and to minimise environmental pollution within or emanating from the Borough.

b) To support the National Environment City initiative and such networks as may be established.

c) To promote Environment City locally, regionally, nationally and internationally.

d) To procure changes in practice in all organisations whose operations affect the Borough of Middlesbrough.

On designation. MEC established 7 SWGs, covering Energy, Education, Environmental Quality, Transport, Natural Environment, Built Environment and Waste Management and Recycling. The Education SWG was derived from the idea of a Social Environment SWG in the 'model'. By the summer of 1994, however, only the Energy, the Natural Environment, the Waste and Recycling and the Environmental Quality SWGs remained. Again, the lack of any driving force from a committed, knowledgeable, full time, and well resourced group such as Leicester's Environ allowed the SWGs to lose their direction and active membership.

On 1 April 1996, Cleveland County Council was abolished and Hartlepool, Stockton, Langbaugh (new name Redcar and Cleveland) and Middlesbrough became unitary authorities. This followed a titanic struggle including legal actions. Reflecting the national situation, the leadership of the Borough Council was determined to take on the County Council's responsibilities and the County Council's leadership was determined to prevent this. The feeling was prevalent throughout both organisations with officers having a great deal to gain or lose from the 'battle'. So ferocious was the conflict that, for over a year, all officers of Middlesbrough BC were under strict instructions not to speak to officers at Cleveland County Council. The scene was set for 'scores to be settled' in the future. For instance, although, the County Council was abolished and the Borough survived, the incoming Labour faction which had held power at County Hall ousted that faction which had controlled the Borough Council. The former were described by senior commentators as traditional moderate Labour and as 'taxi drivers and blue collar workers with no understanding of environmentalism'. The latter were described as intellectual radical Labour and a s' academics and personnel officers' who were much more aware of sustainable green ideology. The former, previous County Council group, took almost all of the committee chairs although one previous MBC Councillor did become joint leader with a former County Councillor. After some painful and much criticised procedures all eight of the previous first tier chief officers, including the Chief Executive, were replaced with either previous County Council officers or outsiders. Inevitably, this was to cause a real set back to the already very

shaky EC and Agenda 21 initiatives.

To make matters still more difficult, on 31 March 1996, the EC designation also expired. Moreover, the new MBC was faced with a very serious financial situation from day one of the new authority, as a result of threatened Council Tax capping. To this was added the loss of Urban Programme Funding for MEC. The new leadership, however, recognised that it was important to the Council to retain the prestigious EC title especially for the town's image, and so the initiative was identified as the only area for additional spending in 1996/97, albeit only about £30,000 to help 'keep the show on the road'. This was to be achieved by making savings and/or staff secondments to MEC from the budgets of other departments. Notwithstanding this effort to hang on to the title for the good name of the Borough, the new leadership knew little about MEC and had little sympathy for its aims, a fact supported by the findings of this study (see next Chapter). On the basis of past performance and any realistic assessment of future performance as an Environment City it was, therefore realistically, very difficult indeed to justify the renewal of the designation. At a low ebb in its own role as manager of the EC Programme in 1996, however, The Wildlife Trusts did not want any of the cities to be seen to have failed and was not strong enough to take on any political fallout from a refusal to renew. The Trusts were, thus, very anxious to renew Middlesbrough's designation to the year 2000 and the promise of minimal funding and a new plan of action was reluctantly accepted as sufficient. This helps to illustrate how The Wildlife Trusts, as a 'public policy franchisor' had its ability to influence a local authority's formal agenda curtailed by its own vulnerability. At one time the Programme, being backed by a Steering Committee and enjoying a reasonable level of sponsorship from BT and the DoE, could be viewed as an outsider group by intention. This was evidenced by the strength and confidence it showed in selecting Middlesbrough, a rank outsider to be an Environment City in the first place. Now, it foresaw that it might have to go 'cap in hand' to the cities for funding and manoeuvre very carefully if it were to keep even its managerial role of the franchise in the face of threats from the cities to set up a new

Programme management body'-'. In such an event, some officers at the Trust stood to lose a major pan of their responsibilities. The Trust's own lack o f interest, how ever, had almost caused it to lose its power of public policy franchise through the Programme and had almost reduced it to prisoner group status, a status which is normative in relation to the many wildlife trusts which make up its membership. The last ditch efforts made by officers at The Trusts to retrieve the situation have been explained above.

On the basis o f the three principal tenets o f the EC approach, Middlesbrough's experience can, otherwise, be explained as follows.

An Emphasis on (Equal) Partnership

A major feature of Middlesbrough's local government which, in its early days, was much reported (e.g. Shepherd, 1987) was the development of a system of Community or Neighbourhood Councils. Eleven were created in 1984, each having a community budget of a few thousand pounds. They were set up in what were considered to be the most deprived areas in the Borough and served populations between 1,000 and 10,000 people. Annual public meetings are held where local people are nominated and elected to serve. There are now over 30 councils, still mostly in the poorest areas. These voluntary groupings of local people which have been instigated by the Council, on the face of it, to help provide an opportunity for 'community participation' but, as argued later, they might equally be seen as an example of blaming the victim' - in this case the victims of deprivation. The Neighbourhood Councils have only limited power to influence the Council's policies and this is mostly informally through their local councillor and the Labour Party. Nevertheless, they are quite powerful in their role of championing the cause of their localities in the fight for resources including those which have involved bids for, first, Estate Action and then SRB36 funded schemes. Like the EC designation, the existence of neighbourhood councils

oD The EC Managers in the cities considered this in response to the 1996 management crisis for the national programme.

36 Single Regeneration Budget. This is the Government's scheme through which local authorities compete with each other for approval to spend capital.

look good when cited in bids. They appeal to the Government's and the European Commission’s requirements these days that schemes and projects should be worked up with the involvement of residents. These groups have usually acted as low profile insiders.

County wide action and partnerships have been quite progressive. By 1994, Cleveland County Council also had an Environmental Strategy which followed its Environmental Charter adopted in 1991. An environmental audit of the Council's activities was also carried out at that time by an inter departmental officers' working group. The County' had helped establish the Cleveland Environmental Forum, a partnership body involving all sectors (including the district councils) in a county wide initiative to co-ordinate their actions towards environmental sustainability. Cleveland's Industry Nature Conservation Society had also been established as a partnership body between the local authorities and industry to work with the Cleveland Wildlife Trust and the Middlesbrough Botanic Centre on nature conservation, especially on industrial sites. With the exception of the Community Councils and the Specialist Working Groups, however, Middlesbrough, itself, has little real partnership working to show for its, now, 5 years of being an Environment City. Nevertheless, the language of partnership is now being spoken again (see below). It remains to be seen whether this largely officer-led new front will gain real political commitment. At the time of writing, this seems to be unlikely for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the words of commitment are important, providing one opportunity for the policy entrepreneurs of Local Agenda 21 to use the 'politics of embarrassment' to push the Council.

The new Middlesbrough Borough Council (1997: 1) has agreed a vision for the town as:

Middlesbrough Borough Council, with its partners, seeks to develop Middlesbrough as a thriving, innovative centre at the heart of Teesside. A centre where everyone is able to fulfill their potential, feel a sense of belonging and pride and where benefits are shared by all members of the community. One where people live, work, play, visit and invest in an attractive environment which is safe and healthy. Above all, a centre which safeguards the future for our successors. (My emphasis.)

It is expected that this will:

...provide the direction for the Council's activities over the coming years, and is reinforced by core values and styles for the new unitary authority. Middlesbrough Pride and Enterprise partners, Middlesbrough Environment City partners and other organisations will be

approached to endorse this strategic vision as a town wide theme for improving quality of life.

It is envisaged that comprehensive involvement in the vision will be encouraged and in particular that co-ordination of the community participation exercise will be undertaken by Middlesbrough Environment City. Others will also be asked to contribute to the consultation process. In particular, Middlesbrough Council's community development teams are to include environmental sustainability and Local Agenda 21 in their discussions with local communities.

It is encouraging that, more than in any of the other Environment Cities, some practical involvement of the business sector (essentially through ICI) has been achieved in Middlesbrough.

A telling comment from a senior local government officer in Middlesbrough about the need to influence the business sector was:

The decisions that need to be made to bring about the changes we need will not be made by voluntary agencies or in the local council chambers but in the boardrooms of companies like ICI.

Demonstration Projects

The major focus of MEC has been on demonstration projects. The SWGs produced about 30 projects, many of which were commendable. In comparison with the project achievements of the other three cities, however, they are collectively and individually weaker. Some examples are:

Save Energy at Home / Eco-Feedback project - about 4% of households returning questionnaires; home composting - 100 households; environment questionnaire survey - sent to 560 households - 80% response and received free low light bulbs, University of Teesside; Smokespotters, relaunch of scheme where people report smoky vehicle emissions; Enviroscope, Education SWG funded packs to all schools for teachers to use; Green Transport Fortnight; Southlands Centre energy audit; Marton Primary School, energy saving measure; 2 x one day courses on The Principles and Implications of Sustainable Development; Teesside Environmental Services, consultancy for those with

environmental problems; Local Energy Advice Centre, with Energy Savings Trust funding probably gained as a result of being an EC; students looked at Green Corridors and feasibility of kerbside recyiables collection: Community Forest and Urban Forestry Strategy; promotion of wildlife gardens with demonstrations in City Challenge Area; 42 site hydrocarbon study; St. John's Gate new inner city’ housing development - two houses demonstrating best energy use: resource bank of recyclable materials for use of schools and other groups.

Holism (or Integration) and a Local Agenda 21

On designation, Middlesbrough Borough Council had a reasonable reputation for its environmental programmes. It had produced a draft Environmental Strategy for Middlesbrough, had an Environmental Co-ordinator in post (seconded by ICI) and an officers' co-ordination group. Each department had been required to incorporate ten environmental actions into its Sendee Plans for which there was an annual review mechanism. Environmental awareness training was introduced for all staff and made good progress, though it was not seen through to completion. Integration of the broad agenda has, otherwise, not been a strength of Middlesbrough's approach. As explained above, MEC's management has been very weak and the Board lost interest and momentum. Whilst some determined individuals in the few remaining SWGs continued to produce good projects, with reasonable support from the MEC office, 1992 to 1996 was a period of lurching from one crisis to another. A new beginning was sought.

A New Beginning for MEC?

In 1996, on seeking a renewal of the Environment City designation, an idea for revitalising MEC was put forward by the acting MEC Manager. This involved drawing MEC closer to Middlesbrough Borough Council through the adoption of a revised model. The aim was to rely more on the established structure of the Council for the progress of the initiative rather than on the 'less reliable' structures of voluntary involvement.

It was agreed that the Management Board would be reconstituted with 30 members, 7 of whom would be officers and elected members from MBC. It would start to meet every two cycles of Council meetings (every 3 months), would be chaired by MBC with the Vice Chair

from Cleveland Wildlife Trust and be responsible for policy and strategy. A Chairs' Co­ ordinating Group would report to it and be responsible for overseeing the work of the SWGs. It would be comprised of all the SWG chairs but be chaired by someone from the Management Board, meeting every 3 months. The whole would be served by MEC staff working within MBC's own organisation. The Environmental Sustainability Co-ordinator