Water Management and Water Governance in a Changing Climate Experiences and insights on climate change adaptation in Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia
Patrick Huntjens PhD thesis
Final version, September 2010 Institute of Environmental Systems Research University of Osnabrück, Germany
Endorsed by the Nobel Prize Winner in Economics 2009: Prof. Dr. Elinor Ostrom
2
To my wife Nicole and our son Talin
3
Members of PhD-committee: Prof. Dr. Claudia Pahl-Wostl (First supervisor) Professor for resources management - an endowed chair of the German Environmental Foundation Institute of Environmental Systems Research (USF) University of Osnabrück, Germany Prof. Dr. John Grin (Second supervisor) Professor for Policy Sciences and System Innovations Department of Political Science University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands Prof. Dr. Katrien Termeer Professor for Public Administration and Policy Public Administration and Policy Group (PAP) Wageningen University, The Netherlands Dr. Carolin Rettig Institute of Environmental Systems Research (USF) University of Osnabrück, Germany
----------This research was funded by the European research project NeWater (New Approaches to Adaptive Water Management under Uncertainty), under contract from the European Commission, Contract no. 511179 (GOCE), Integrated Project in PRIORITY 6.3 Global Change and Ecosystems in the 6th EU Framework Programme. (www.newater.info) th
The field research related to chapter 8 and 10 was co-funded by the European 6 Framework project ASEMWaternet (www.asemwaternet.org). ASEM Waternet is a multi-stakeholder and scientific platform on water resources management, including 35 participating organizations from Europe and Asia. ------------
5
Water Management and Water Governance in a Changing Climate Experiences and insights on climate change adaptation in Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia
PhD-thesis / Proefschrift
For earning the degree of doctor (dr.) at the University of Osnabrueck, on the authority of the Rector Magnificus, Prof. Dr. Claus R. Rollinger, according to the ‘Promotionsordnung’ to be publicly defended, on Wednesday 17 November 2010 at 11:00 hours in Osnabrueck, Germany
Ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor (dr.) aan de Universiteit van Osnabrück, Op gezag van de rector magnificus, Prof. Dr. Claus R. Rollinger, volgens de ‘Promotionsordnung’ in het openbaar te verdedigen, op woensdag 17 november 2010 om 11:00 uur in Osnabrück, Duitsland
by / door
Patrick M.J.M. Huntjens Born on 14 March 1974 / Geboren op 14 maart 1974 In Heerlen, The Netherlands / te Heerlen 7
Acknowledgements This thesis forms the end result of a little more than four years of research. A special thanks goes to my supervisors Claudia Pahl-Wostl and John Grin, who despite their full agendas managed to schedule valuable time for many fruitful and inspiring discussions and feedback. I am very grateful to Claudia PahlWostl for providing me with an excellent working environment in two ‘groundbreaking’ European (but globally focussed) research projects: NeWater and ASEMWaternet. Within this context, I collaborated with many wise people on five contintents. I would like to thank all of them for their contributions to this research. Also a special thanks to my ‘shadow’ supervisor Elinor Ostrom for welcoming me to Bloomington (U.S.) and for her kindness, wisdom and indispensable support and feedback to my research on institutional design principles for climate change adaptation. Furthermore, I would like to thank all participants in the case studies for taking the time and effort to complete questionnaires, to participate in interviews and workshops, to share their networks and to facilitate priceless field trips at numerous exotic locations in Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia. My family, in particular my wife Nicole and my parents Zef and Maria, and all my friends were invaluable during this beautiful and exceptionally inspiring period of my life.
Patrick Huntjens Amsterdam, September 2010
9
10
TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary ................................................................................................................................... I-VXI
Chapter 1
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1
1.1
Scope of this thesis ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2
Impacts of climate change on water resources and society ....................................................... 3
1.3
Challenges: hazards and opportunities ....................................................................................... 8
1.4
Definitions .................................................................................................................................. 10
1.5
Research objective and questions ............................................................................................. 12
1.6
Research context ........................................................................................................................ 12
1.7
Research methodology .............................................................................................................. 13
1.8
Reading guide ............................................................................................................................. 20
Chapter 2
Conceptual background ...........................................................................................................23
2.1
A social and political science perspective on water management and water governance ..... 24
2.2
Regime theory ............................................................................................................................ 28
2.3
Moving towards iterative learning cycles .................................................................................. 30
2.4
Social learning in water resources management ...................................................................... 33
2.5
Policy learning ............................................................................................................................ 35
2.6
The IWRM concept and its implementation in practice ........................................................... 36
2.7
Adaptive management ............................................................................................................... 39
2.8
Combining Adaptive Management and IWRM.......................................................................... 40
2.9
Adaptive water governance ....................................................................................................... 43
2.10
Multi-level water governance .................................................................................................... 44
2.11
A symbiogenesis of different concepts ...................................................................................... 46
11
Part II – Methodological advancements ................................................................................................. 49
Chapter 3
A framework for assessing the level of adaptive and integrated water management ..........51
3.1
Agency ........................................................................................................................................ 55
3.2
Awareness Raising & Education ................................................................................................. 57
3.3
Governance style ........................................................................................................................ 57
3.4
Cooperation structures .............................................................................................................. 58
3.5
Policy development & implementation..................................................................................... 60
3.6
Information management .......................................................................................................... 62
3.7
Finances and cost recovery ........................................................................................................ 64
3.8
Risk Management ....................................................................................................................... 66
3.9
Effectiveness of (international) regulation ................................................................................ 67
Chapter 4
A framework for analyzing different levels of policy learning .................................................69
4.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 69
4.2
Single loop learning .................................................................................................................... 72
4.3
Double loop learning .................................................................................................................. 72
4.4
Triple loop learning .................................................................................................................... 74
4.5
Research questions for assessing levels of learning .................................................................. 76
Chapter 5
Comparing complex water governance systems by using multi-value QCA............................79
5.1
Data reduction ............................................................................................................................ 82
5.2
Truth Table ................................................................................................................................. 86
5.3
Boolean Minimization ................................................................................................................ 87
5.4
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 90
12
Part III
Comparative case study analyses of different governanceregimes and institutional designs – The quest for general patterns ................................................................................................93
Chapter 6
The relationship between regime characteristics & physical interventions in a river basin ...95
6.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 96
6.2
Interdependence of the regime characteristics and responsiveness to floods and droughts 100
6.3
Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 102
6.4
Results ...................................................................................................................................... 103
6.5
Discussion and conclusions ...................................................................................................... 115
Chapter 7
The relationship between regime characteristics and levels of policy learning in river basin . . management .........................................................................................................................119
7.1
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 120
7.2
Interdependence of the regime characteristics and policy learning ...................................... 123
7.3
Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 126
7.4
Comparative assessment of the management systems .......................................................... 127
7.5
Relative strengths and weaknesses per case-study ................................................................ 131
7.6
Comparative assessment of the levels of policy learning ....................................................... 135
7.7
Assessing the dominant level of policy learning ..................................................................... 138
7.8
Relationship between regime characteristics and the level of policy learning (QCA model) 142
7.9
Discussion and conclusions ...................................................................................................... 144
Chapter 8
Institutional design principles for climate change adaptation ..............................................147
8.1
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 148
8.2
Institutional design principles .................................................................................................. 149
8.3
Strategies and institutional settings ........................................................................................ 150
8.4
Research methods .................................................................................................................... 154
13
8.5
Results and discussion .............................................................................................................. 154
8.6
Synthesis and Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 184
Part IV - Functioning and effectiveness of participation and multi-stakeholder dialogues on water and climate – Zooming in on general patterns...................................................................................................189
Chapter 9 Enhancing stakeholder participation in river basin management using group model building in the Tisza, Orange and Amudarya basins .................................................................................................191 9.1
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 192
9.2
Methods.................................................................................................................................... 197
9.3
Results ...................................................................................................................................... 202
9.4
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 208
9.5
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 210
Chapter 10 Critical reflections on multi-stakeholder dialogues on water: experiences in the Netherlands, Australia, Mekong Region, and Portugal .....................................................................................................211 10.1
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 212
10.2
Research Design ....................................................................................................................... 213
10.3
Initiation ................................................................................................................................... 215
10.4
Format ...................................................................................................................................... 217
10.5
Content ..................................................................................................................................... 220
10.6
Outcomes.................................................................................................................................. 223
10.7
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 227
10.8
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 230
14
Part V – Synthesis, outlook and spin-offs ....................................................................................................231
Chapter 11
Overall conclusions ................................................................................................................233
11.1
Methodological advancements ............................................................................................... 233
11.2
Different responses to floods and droughts ............................................................................ 237
11.3
Discovery of significant correlations between different regime elements ........................... 240
11.4
Key factors for policy learning & disclosure of the socio- cognitive dimension in water management ............................................................................................................................ 241
11.5
Explaining underlying mechanisms of interdependency & the socio-cognitive dimension . 242
11.6
Influence of context on climate change adaptation ............................................................... 244
11.7
Obstacles and opportunities for climate change adaptation ................................................. 245
11.7
Institutional design principles for climate change adaptation ............................................... 259
11.8
Insights on functioning and effectiveness of participation and multi-stakeholder platforms on water and climate ............................................................................................................... 260
11.9
Reflecting on the symbiogenesis of different concepts .......................................................... 262
11.10 Limitations of this research ...................................................................................................... 263
Chapter 12
Future research .....................................................................................................................267
12.1
Methodological recommendations ......................................................................................... 267
12.2
Institutional analyses ............................................................................................................... 270
12.3
Appropriate economic instruments for climate change adaptation ...................................... 272
12.4
Agency in adaptation ............................................................................................................... 274
12.5
Multi-level and multi-sector interactions ................................................................................ 278
12.6
Governance modes................................................................................................................... 280
12.7
Influence of context on climate change adaptation ............................................................... 284
12.8
Performance of water governance regimes in dealing with the impacts of climate change . 287
15
Chapter 13
PhD-research spin-offs ..........................................................................................................291
13.1
ASEM Waternet Scorecard ....................................................................................................... 291
13.2
Twin2Go .................................................................................................................................... 297
13.3
Water Governance Cards ......................................................................................................... 298
13.4
Climate change adaptation in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam .................................................... 299
13.5
Group model building for an environmental security assessment in the Mekong Delta ...... 300
13.6
Cross-comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Strategies across Regions ........................ 300
13.7
The Adaptive Water Resource Management Handbook ........................................................ 301
13.8
Special issue in Ecology and Society on participation techniques in water resources management ............................................................................................................................ 302
13.9
European Commission Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive .................................................................................................................................................. 303
13.10
Conference papers and presentations for international conferences, seminars and other fora ....................................................................................................................................... 303
13.11
Extended articles in policy magazines ................................................................................. 304
References
...............................................................................................................................................305
Appendix I – Questionnaire for assessing the level of AIWM .....................................................................339 Appendix II – Questionnaire for assessing the scope and diversity of physical interventions for dealing with floods and droughts in a river basin ............................................................................................................345
16
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This book addresses the important topic of understanding what determines the capacity of water management and governance systems to deal with the challenges posed by climate change. It does investigate, and produce important, innovative insights on, one of the key issues for the next few decades, integrated water resources management (IWRM) and the kind of adaptive management it presupposes. It integrates a wide range of concepts from different backgrounds and translates them into operational frameworks to be applied in different basin contexts. By doing so it does justice to the complexity of the phenomena under investigation and builds a rich empirical knowledge base from which a range of important, innovative insights are drawn. Methodologically, a wide variety of methods and techniques of very different origins are brought together, yet in a very coherent and transparent way. The analysis draws on a very extensive empirical basis, which also enables to employ comparative argument. The conclusions are grounded in this analysis, form a very sound and elaborate answer to the research questions, and are translated in a range of enlightening insights and recommendations for practice. The book significantly contributes to theory development, especially on the issue of regimes for adaptive management, where a more dynamic and contingent understanding is needed than is offered in literature on institutions for sustainable development. Chapter 1 provides an overview and concise summary of the overall thesis – background, approaches and major achievements. Based on a review of challenges posed by climate change three research objectives are derived which emphasize the identification of specific configurations of conditions in adaptive and integrated water management that lead to different adaptations and higher levels of policy learning in river basin management, the identification of obstacles and opportunities in this respect and to develop institutional design principles for climate change adaptation. These objectives are translated into seven more specific research questions. This includes arguments for the selection of eight cases. Given the nature of the topics under investigation the conceptual background needs to be quite broad. Chapter 2 gives an overview over the range of concepts that were used to develop a comprehensive methodological approach for tackling the research questions and building the empirical knowledge base. A strong argument is maded for a symbiogenesis of concepts which leads to an integrated and systemic approach for dealing with complexity. These concepts come from a wide variety of fields (including governance theory, policy sciences, adaptive management, policy learning) and cover different approaches within these fields. Chapter 3 introduces a comprehensive framework for assessing levels of adaptive and integrated management regime characteristics which is based on frameworks developed in NeWater for characterising adaptive management and adaptive governance, respectively. The framework identifies 9 essential dimensions and 33 more specific indicators which can be operationalized for empirical analyses. The justification of the choice of the indicators is based on an impressive and comprehensive review of literature and reflects a sound understanding of the interaction of structure and agency. Chapter 4 summarizes essential assumptions for a framework for policy learning based on the concept of triple loop learning originally introduced in organizational theory. While drawing on literature on policy learning (Hall; Sabatier; Wegner) to define learning, the focus is on literature on learning in groups and I
organizations (Argyris, Schön, Hargrove) in developing the framework for application in resource governance contexts. The link to the literature on policy learning is innovative. It enables to mobilize the understanding of the socio-psychological mechanisms and contextual conditions for learning. With due emphasis on the demands of adaptive management these insights are translated into foci for assessing learning processes. Analysing the relationship between a large number of regime characteristics and regime performance poses considerable methodological challenges. QCA (qualitative comparative analysis) is a promising method to support such analyses by combining the strengths of qualitative case study analyses with statistical methods. One limitation of QCA is the need to reduce scores to binary variables. This limitation was partly overcome by further developing multi-value QCA for the purposes of this thesis as outlined in chapter 5. Using the data presented in later chapters an outlying case is identified (i.e. Hungary), explaining that it is an outlier because of an additional independent variable (i.e. a shadow network). It then carefully employs four different approaches to multi-value QCA, shows what insights they yield, then identifies several variables as relatively unimportant for the outcome, as well as an optimal explanatory model that shows how some of the other factors may account for outcomes. Thus it could be shown that cooperation structures and information management are the most important characteristics that influence higher levels of learning. Chapter 6 summarizes results of the comparative analysis of four European case studies on the relationship between regime characteristics (investigated on basis of the framework developed in chapter 3) and the degree to which they produce interventions in response to (new) problems. The chapter contains another, careful, discussion of method, where it is explained how the variables have been translated into scorable questions for standardized questionnaires. The framework presented in chapter 3 is operationalized and translated into questionnaires to elicit expert opinions for the 33 regime characteristics. Such an approach is the only possibility to build up a rich data base on a wide range of regime characteristics from different basins. Much care was devoted to assess the robustness of expert judgements. Data are then processes through standard statistical correlation techniques. Yet, other than is too often the case, it does not end with a listing of the most important correlations found, but (in the final two sections) goes at considerable length in interpreting the findings and relating them to existing literature. The analysis linked the response to dealing with floods and droughts with regime characteristics. It articulates a range of new insights, and underlines that quite some of them are essentially non-trivial. Chapter 7 deals with the relationship between regime characteristics and levels of policy learning in river basin management. The framework for policy learning introduced in chapter 4 was operationalized using a wide range of factors to analyse policy learning in the context of climate change adaptation. This goes far beyond the analysis of physical interventions related to floods and droughts reported in chapter 6. In combination with the method introduced in chapter 6 an empirical knowledge base was developed for European and non-European basins which allowed drawing important insights on factors that influence climate change adaptation and higher levels of policy learning in this respect. Chapter 8 elaborates on the usefulness of the institutional design developed by Ostrom for local resource governance contexts, for which Ostrom received the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics. Thoughtfully taking up Ostrom’s idea of institutional design principles and bringing it to the case studies it is argued that the uncertainties surrounding climate change issues urge for adapting and complementing these principles. A II
number of additional design principles are introduced, extensively informed by the empirical work, that do justice to the different nature of policy development at basin and national level in the context of climate change adaptation. These design principles do not promote blue-prints but are formulated such that a fine-tuning to the regional contexts of geography and ecology as well as economies and cultures is possible. This is an important issue to avoid that such design principles are interpreted as simplistic panaceas. The following two chapters (9 and 10) further explore how water management regimes actually proceeded in producing outcomes. It focuses on two key issues: how to promote participation of stakeholders, and how to promote learning between them, given that they differ amongst themselves and from experts in the types of knowledge they employ. The work on stakeholder participation in river basin management reported in chapter 9 thus moves to the process dimension of the analyses reported in this book. The use of group model building in quite different river basins - the Tisza, Orange and Amudarya – is compared which allows drawing interesting insights on potential and limitations of using such approaches in different cultural, political and economic settings. It also highlights the importance of the transdisciplinary component of the research on climate change adaptation strategies. The importance of transdisciplinar approaches is further explored in chapter 10 with a critical reflection on multi-stakeholder dialogues on water and climate in Europe, SouthEast Asia and Australia. Chapter 11 summarizes the major results of the different analyses with emphasis on climate change adaptation. It also addresses the limitations of the work which are partly inherent in its exploratory nature. This chapter provides clear evidence that a number of important insights could be gained based on the comparative analysis of a larger number of basins using a systematic approach which is quite unique. Chapter 11 articulates the contributions of this book in various respects: methodological findings, findings about what characteristics make water management regimes more or less successful, deepened by a consideration of the operations of such regimes and leading to novel insights on institutional design principles. These insights can be used to set priorities for further focused in depth analyses. There is also an interesting section on the merits of the symbiogenesis of different concepts and a reflection on the limits of the analyses. The introduction and reading guide in the beginning and the summary at the end helps the reader to see the individual contributions in a larger context and how they contribute to a larger picture. This book ends (chapter 12) with a comprehensive agenda for future research, argued on basis of both the merits and the limits of the analyses as presented in chapter 11.
III
EXTENDED ABSTRACT About the project This PhD-research has been undertaken as part of the European Union-funded NeWater Project, which aimed at developing new approaches to water management under uncertain [natural or political] conditions. NeWater recognized that fundamental changes were needed in the way that water is managed all over the world. The way in which water is currently managed everywhere is clearly not succeeding in protecting the water source and is threatening our future access to this resource. This project has promoted real/actual implementation of Adaptive Management as a potential way forward. Adaptive Management is defined as a systematic process for improving management policies and practices by systemic learning from the outcomes of implemented management strategies and by taking into account changes in external factors (Pahl-Wostl et al, 2005). Adaptive Management is essentially “learning by doing”, but it needs to be informed if it is to be successful. This project aims to provide information on which current water managers can base certain decisions for doing things better going into the future. Structure of this dissertation This dissertation comprises of five major parts: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Introduction and conceptual background Methodological advancements Comparative case study analyses of different governance regimes and institutional designs – The quest for general patterns The functioning and effectiveness of participation and multi-stakeholder dialogues on water and climate – Zooming in on general patterns Synthesis, Outlook and Spin-offs
PART I – INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND Climate change adaptation in water resources management is vital and unavoidable The introduction to this dissertation (Chapter 1) starts with a staggering picture of the current and future impacts of climate change on water resources and society. According to the World Health Organization, climate change is likely to be the biggest global threat to health of the 21st century (WHO, 2009). Catastrophic weather events, variable climates that affect food and water supplies, new patterns of infectious disease outbreaks, and emerging diseases linked to ecosystem changes are all associated with climate change and pose health risks. In 2010, more than 300 million people per year will be severely affected by climate change, and this number will likely increase to approximately 650 million people per year by 2030 (Human Impact Report, 2009). Economic losses today are estimated at US $100 billion dollars per year and will increase to over US $300 billion dollars per year in 2030. There are more than 300.000 people per year who die due to climate
I
change in 2010, and this will rise to approximately 500.000 deaths per year in 2030 (Human Impact Report, 2009). Climate change can directly affect the hydrologic cycle and, through it, the quantity and quality of water resources. An increase in the surface temperature of water and changes in the hydrological cycle could result in changing rainfall patterns over the region. Some areas may experience intense rainfall resulting in heavy floods, while other areas may witness less rainfall as well as frequent droughts (IARU, 2009; World Water Development Report, 2009). Climatic changes can lower minimum flows in rivers, affecting water availability and quality for its flora and fauna and for drinking water intake, energy production (hydropower), thermal plant cooling and transportation via rivers, channels and lakes. Food security can be at stake and worsen the levels of malnutrition. As a direct result, many sectors are extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climatic change, in particular agriculture, fishery, industry, navigation, tourism, human health, public safety, biodiversity and environmental services from ecosystems (for example coastal protection by mangrove forests and buffering capacity by wetlands). Climate change adaptation is necessary today and for the next decades to come, since there are multiple lines of evidence that climate change is happening now, and the impacts are being seen now (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007; World Water Development Report, 2009; Human Impact Report, 2009; International Association of Research Universities (IARU), 2009). Even worse, recent observations show that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near the upper boundary of the IPCC range of projections (IARU, 2009). Climate change is happening more rapidly than anyone thought possible (Human Impact Report, 2009; IARU, 2009). Many key climate indicators are already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which contemporary society and economy have developed and thrived. These indicators include global mean surface temperature, sealevel rise, global ocean temperature, Arctic sea ice extent, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events (IARU, 2009). After failing to establish a new, ambitious, and binding climate agreement at the UN Conference of Parties (COP15) in Copenhagen in December 2009, the importance of climate change adaptation is rapidly increasing. After all, even the most ambitious climate agreement will take years to slow or reverse global warming, since the global carbon economy has been the basis of all productive efforts for centuries. Emissions are still steadily increasing, and the world population is set to grow by forty percent by 2050 (Human Impact Report, 2009). In other words, instead of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions today, with the current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices, global greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades (European Environment Agency, 2007; IPPC, AR4, 2007). With unabated emissions, many trends in climate will likely accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts (IARU, 2009). It is increasingly recognized that we need to adapt to the challenges and opportunities that a changing climate will bring. Doing nothing is not an option, especially if one realizes that for every euro invested in disaster preparedness, six euro could be saved in reconstruction costs after disasters have been taken place (UNEP, 2004). Such a return rate on investments is an important consideration to be taken into account by politicians and society as a whole, especially during today’s global financial and ecological crises. Hence, the necessary investment costs for climate change adaptation might seem high, but the cost of adaptation is far less than the cost of inaction. The costs allocated to climate change adaptation will safeguard past investments in development that have been sourced over decades mainly from public II
coffers (Human Impact Report, 2009). Much of this public money is at great risk today. The Stern Report estimated the cost of ignoring climate change is more than that of the two World Wars and the Great Depression, or 5-20 percent of GDP (Stern et al., 2006). However, climate change adaptation requires fundamental changes in the way that water is managed Within the context of climate change, the management of water resources is afflicted with uncertainties: unpredictability of development, incomplete knowledge or conflicting perspectives on the seriousness of a problem, its causes and potential solutions (Pahl-Wostl, 2007; Isendahl et al 2010). Nowadays, uncertainties increase since pace and dimension of changes (e.g. climatic, demographic) are accelerating and are likely to increase even more in the future. Hence, it is crucial to find pragmatic ways to deal with them in water management practice. Challenges for water management in a changing climate include the following (adjusted from Pahl-Wostl & Sendzimir, 2005):
Sustainable management of water resources cannot be realized unless current water management regimes undergo a transition towards more adaptive and integrated water management and adaptive water governance.
To cope with uncertainties, adaptive management and adaptive governance is needed as a systematic process for improving management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of implemented management strategies. Essentially it means “learning by doing”, but it needs to be informed if it is to be successful.
A key element is the active involvement of stakeholders in the process of developing, implementing and monitoring water management plans.
For these reasons, integrated, adaptive approaches seem crucial. However, the change towards more integrated, adaptive approaches is slow, and empirical data and practical experience is limited. One possible reason for this lack of innovation is the strong interdependence of the factors stabilizing current management regimes (Pahl-Wostl & Sendzimir, 2005). One cannot, for example, move easily from topdown to participatory management practices without changing the whole approach to information and risk management and collaboration structures. Hence, research is urgently needed to better understand the interdependence of key elements of water management regimes and the dynamics of adaptation and transition processes. This requires research being able to compare and evaluate alternative management regimes and to support transition processes if required. The ultimate objective of this PhD research is to strengthen the conceptual foundations and practical value of adaptive approaches in water management, particularly dealing with floods and droughts. Research objectives and questions In this PhD research, I intend to gather insights and experiences on climate change adaptation from case studies in Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia, in order to strengthen the conceptual foundations and practical value of adaptive and integrated approaches to water management and water governance. This research has an explorative character in order to identify general patterns in the characteristics of
III
adaptive and integrated water management (AIWM) and its role in developing climate change adaptation strategies. The ultimate objective of this research consists of three key research objectives: 1
To identify specific configurations of conditions in adaptive and integrated water management that lead to different adaptations (see Chapter 6) and higher levels of policy learning (see chapter 7) in river basin management;
2
To identify obstacles and opportunities for climate change adaptation in water management;
3
To build empirical support for identifying and understanding institutional design principles for climate change adaptation by comparing processes of developing climate change adaptation strategies (see Chapter 8).
Based on the research objectives the following seven research questions have been deducted: 1
How to determine the level of adaptive and integrated water management in dealing with climaterelated extreme events in each case-study? See chapter 3;
2
How to determine the output or outcome of a water management regime? See chapter 4;
3
How to assess and compare complex water management regimes in order to identify general patterns? See comparative method in chapter 5 and analytical frameworks used in chapter 6-10;
4
Based on formal comparative analyses, what is the relationship between water management regimes and the output of these regimes? Output is defined either in terms of adaptation measures (see chapter 6) or levels of policy learning (see chapter 7);
5
Based on formal comparative analyses, what determines the adaptive capacity of a regime? And what are the obstacles and opportunities for climate change adaptation? See chapter 6-10;
6
Based on an exploratory study as well as theoretical insights, what may be appropriate institutional design principles for adaptation strategies in complex, multi-level, governance systems? See chapter 8;
7
Based on an exploratory study as well as theoretical insights, how can participation and multistakeholder dialogues on water be made more effective? Chapter 9-10;
Research methods This PhD research has used a variety of research methods. The key characteristics of research methods being used can be categorized in the following:
Policy-related transdisciplinary research (1.6.1), based on literature reviews and analysis of primary data sources such as documents about the process events, water policies and other project plans, and interviews with participants, conveners or stakeholders involved in their preparation, implementation and follow-up;
Formal, comparative case study analyses (1.6.2), combining in-depth case studies with more extensive and formal comparative analysis, including multi-value QCA and correlation tests;
IV
Knowledge elicitation tools (1.6.3), such as expert judgment by means of interviews and questionnaires for scoring and weighing indicators, stakeholder workshops, cognitive mapping and group model building.
For the field research, a total of 190 responses from experts in 20 countries have been collected, either by means of interviews (59%), questionnaires (15%) or workshops (26%). The interviews and workshops were conducted on the spot in 10 case studies (see 1.6.2). The countries include the Netherlands, Germany, Portugal, Czech Republic, Hungary, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Lao PDR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, China, Thailand, Australia, South Africa, Lesotho, Botswana, Uganda, Rwanda, and Tanzania. The term ‘expert’ broadly defines a range of experts that may include water users (e.g. farmers and fishermen), related interest groups (e.g. water users or farmers associations), government officials and policy makers from the local to the international level, representatives from civil society organizations and industry, and last but not least, consultants and researchers. Conceptual background Chapter 2 provides the conceptual and theoretical framework for this dissertation. Integrated water resources management (IWRM) and adaptive water management (AWM) are concepts that have been developed to cope with complexity, uncertainties and change (Pahl-Wostl, 2004), which is the case for climate change adaptation in water management. This dissertation recognizes the value of highly integrated solutions, although it argues that IWRM 1 concepts need to be strengthened, because IWRM is immature as a management tool. As a review article stated, “There is still a long way to go to achieve a common understanding of IWRM and to develop and refine approaches for its successful implementation”, (Jonker, 2002. p. 719). More recently, adaptive management has been introduced as a concept that may complement missing elements of current approaches to IWRM (Pahl-Wostl, C & Sendzimir, J., 2005). Adaptation to climate change and management of related risks should be built into water resources management plans and programmes. Adaptive and integrated water management is considered to be an appropriate approach for doing so. Chapter 2 will reflect on the concepts of IWRM and AWM, and how they complement each other (respectively in sections 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8). The most important theoretical building blocks for chapter 2 are derived from:
1
Social constructivism and constructivist institutionalism (Hay, 2006; Ruggie, 1998; Schmidt, 2008, 2010)
Regime theory (Krasner, 1983; Wendt, 1995; Young and Zürn, 2006)
Complex adaptive systems (Casti, 1997; Kauffmann, 1995; Pahl-Wostl, 1995), including key concepts such as self-organization, adaptation, heterogeneity across scales and distributed control
For argumentation and critical underpinning, see chapter 2
V
Adaptive management (Gunderson and Holling, 2002; Walters, 1986; Pahl-Wostl & Sendzimir, 2005; Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007a; Adger et al., 2005)
Learning concepts, including social learning (Bandura, 1977; Craps et al., 2003; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007b; Muro and Jeffrey, 2008), action learning (Levy, 2003; Maurer et al., 2006), policy learning (Bennet and Howlett, 1992; Sanderson, 2002; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993, 1999) and organizational learning (Argyris and Schön, 1978, 1996; Boonstra, 2004).
Adaptive water governance (a.o. Kashyap, 2004; Folke et al., 2005; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007; Huitema et al., 2009;; Kallis et al., 2009; Engle & Lemos, 2009)
Socio-ecological systems (Folke et al. 2005, Walker et al. 2003).
In short, the central tenet in chapter 2 is a focus on theories and concepts trying to explain how and why societies, institutions, and policies change within the context of complex problems. In this respect, approaches which are sensitive to cognition and institutional change are highlighted, including adaptive management, deliberative democracy, social learning and policy learning. These approaches are considered important for facilitating (institutional) change and for coping with complexity and uncertainty related to climate change adaptation from a water governance perspective. Important theoretical frameworks in the social sciences (i.e. regime theory in political sciences; rational choice theory; new institutional economics; etc.) fall short in their ability to analyze the complex, context dependent dynamics of governance regimes (Harrison, 2006; Ostrom, 2007; Pahl-Wostl, 2009). As a result, the mainstream research on institutions has not produced many concrete answers to one crucial challenge: how to facilitate institutional change despite massive inertia and opposition without imposing external blueprints and thereby ignoring the intricacies of local conditions (Evans 2004, 2005). It is for this reason that the conceptual background of this dissertation mainly relates to constructivist approaches of political science, which are more sensitive to cognition and institutional change or reform, and with a broader definition of and a different perspective on institutions. By doing so, this chapter shows the benefits of constructivist institutionalism by providing tools and theories which are able to deal with social learning, policy learning, institutional change, different realities, and able to explain how identities and interests can change. These are aspects that have been neglected in approaches fixated on interests (Nullmeyer, 2006), but even these approaches are nowadays opening up to take into account the cognitive turn and the importance of learning processes in explaining institutional change (Nullmeyer, 2006). This dissertation intends to provide a contribution to an ongoing symbiogenesis of different concepts, by providing a theoretical framework for transdisciplinary research on climate change adaptation in water management, but also by reflecting on tools for transdisciplinary research (e.g. cognitive mapping, group model building, multi-stakeholder dialogues). This dissertation includes different (but sometimes overlapping) concepts which are beneficial for developing adaptive approaches to water management and water governance. The purpose of this symbiogenesis is not to establish an all-encompassing scientific theory of the world. Instead, transdisciplinary problem solving aims at pragmatic and problemspecific local integration of knowledge (Hinkel, 2008).
VI
PART II – METHODOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS A framework for assessing the level of adaptive and integrated water management In Chapter 3, a framework has been developed for assessing the level of adaptive and integrated water management (AIWM). The analytical framework comprises several regime elements considered to be important in adaptive and integrated water management: agency, awareness raising and education, type of governance, cooperation structures, information management and –exchange, policy development and –implementation, risk management, finances and cost recovery, and finally, the effectiveness of (international) regulation. This framework will be used for a comparative study to identify general patterns in adaptive and integrated water management, and to determine its role in developing physical interventions in a river basin (Chapter 6), but also its role in developing climate change adaptation strategies to deal with either floods or droughts (Chapter 7). A framework for assessing the level of policy learning in river basin management In Chapter 4, a second and independent methodology has been developed for assessing the levels of policy learning being observed in the adaptation strategies of each water management regime. The adaptation strategies for dealing with floods and/or droughts are being defined as an output of a water management regime. Policy learning is a concept being used by different authors in the field of public administration (e.g. Hall, 1988; Bennet and Howlett, 1992; Sanderson, 2002; Leicester, 2007; Grin & Loeber, 2007; Sabatier, 1988; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). In this PhD research, I define policy learning as a “deliberate attempt to adjust the goals or techniques of policy in the light of the consequences of past policy and new information so as to better attain the ultimate objects of governance” (Hall, 1988: 6). Policy learning involves a socially-conditioned discursive or argumentative process of development of cognitive schemes or frames which questions the goals and assumptions of policies (Sanderson, 2002: 6). Policies change in a variety of different ways. As has long been recognized, some policies are new and innovative, while others are merely incremental refinements of earlier policies (Hogwood and Peters, 1983; Polsby, 1984). In other words, it is important to take into account that policy learning may have different levels of intensity (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007b). For distinguishing between different levels of policy learning I use the concept of double-loop learning (Argyris, 1999) and triple-loop learning (Hargrove, 2002), as an extension of the double-loop concept. In chapter 4 several arguments are provided why the double and triple loop learning concepts are better suited for my comparative analyses than other policy learning concepts, such as the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) of Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1988, 1993, 1999). One important reason is that in contrast to the ACF the concepts used in this thesis allow for distinguishing between different levels of policy learning, which is important for conducting a multi-valueQCA, since Boolean minimization requires dichomotization of an output value (see chapter 5). Additional frameworks Next to the frameworks described above this dissertation has developed three additional frameworks:
VII
A framework for assessing the scope and diversity of physical interventions in a river basin (Chapter 6);
A framework for determining the outcome of participation processes based on mental mapping and causality models (Chapter 9);
A framework for analyzing the functioning and effectiveness of multi-stakeholder dialogues (Chapter 10);
Comparing complex water governance systems by using multi-value QCA Chapter 5 introduces a method known as qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), which is based on Boolean comparative logic (Ragin, 1987, 2008). QCA is particularly suitable for bringing out the full range of causal conditions associated with a particular outcome, and for identifying conjunctures of such conditions (Ragin, 1987, 2008; Rihoux and Ragin, 2008). This method compares different combinations of independent variables in relation to a dependent variable, and then simplifies the causal conditions using a bottom-up data reduction process. In this chapter, I will present a detailed description of how this method has been used to identify how different types of interactions among independent variables in AIWM are related to the level of policy learning in river basin management. This method allows different causal models leading to a particular outcome, meaning that I am not looking for a blueprint in water management systems. PART III – COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENT GOVERNANCE REGIMES AND INSTITUTIONAL DESIGNS – THE QUEST FOR GENERAL PATTERNS
The relationship between regime characteristics and physical interventions in a river basin Chapter 6 presents an assessment and standardized comparative analysis of the current water management regimes in four case studies of three European river basins: the Hungarian part of the Upper Tisza, the Ukrainian part of the Upper Tisza (also called Zacarpathian Tisza), Alentejo Region (including the Alqueva Reservoir) in the Lower Guadiana in Portugal, and Rivierenland in the Netherlands. The analysis comprises several regime elements considered to be important in adaptive and integrated water management (see analytical framework in Chapter 3). This comparative analysis has an explorative character intended to identify general patterns in adaptive and integrated water management, and to determine its role in coping with the impacts of climate change on floods and droughts. The results show that there is a strong interdependence of the elements within a water management regime, and as such, this interdependence is a stabilizing factor in current management regimes. For example, this research provides evidence that a lack of joint/participative knowledge production is an important obstacle for cooperation, or vice versa. I argue that there is a two-way relationship between information management and collaboration. Moreover, this research suggests that bottom-up governance is not a straightforward solution to water management problems in large-scale, complex, multiple-use systems, such as river basins. Instead, all the regimes being analyzed are in a process of finding a balance between bottom-up and top-down governance.
VIII
Finally, this chapter shows that in a basin where one type of extreme is dominant – like droughts in the Alentejo (Portugal) and floods in Rivierenland (Netherlands) – the potential impacts of other extremes are somehow ignored or not perceived with the urgency they might deserve. The relationship between regime characteristics and levels of policy learning in river basin management Chapter 7 provides an evidence-based contribution to understanding the phenomenon of policy learning and its structural constraints in the field of river basin management, particularly related to coping with current and future climatic hazards such as floods and droughts. This has been done by focusing on the relationship between regime characteristics and different levels of policy learning (as defined in Chapter 5 above). Chapter 7 builds further upon the methodological limitations identified in Chapter 6, in particular the notion that the output of a water management regime is not only defined by its physical interventions in a river basin, but also by means of its management interventions. Chapter 7 therefore defines the output of a management regime as the level of policy learning being identified in the climate change adaptation strategies of the case studies. Moreover, instead of four case studies, this chapter compares eight case studies by means of a formal comparative analysis. The method for conducting a formal comparative analysis is also different, since it uses a formal technique called multi-value QCA (see Chapter 5). By analysing the relationship (by using MVQCA) between the level of AIWM and the levels of policy learning (being reflected in their adaptation strategies) I conclude that a relatively high score on cooperation structures and information management are causal conditions leading to at least doubleloop learning in Rivierenland (Netherlands), the Ohre Basin (Czech Republic), and Upper Vaal (South Africa). In the case studies where these conditions are less developed – e.g., in the Alentejo Region (Portugal), Amu Darya (Uzbekistan) and countries of the Kagera Basin - the strategies are characterized by single loop learning (ad-hoc problem solving). Better integrated cooperation structures are characterized by the inclusion of non-governmental stakeholders, governments from different sectors (supporting horizontal integration) and government from different hierarchical levels (supporting vertical integration). Advanced information management is characterized by joint/participative knowledge production, a commitment to dealing with uncertainties, broad communication between stakeholders, open and shared information sources, and flexibility and openness for experimentation. As such, advanced information management may be considered the lubricating oil within cooperation structures, and is considered a crucial prerequisite for facilitating learning processes, building trust and supporting cooperation. An important conclusion based on our formal comparative analyses is that better integrated cooperation structures and advanced information management are the key factors leading towards higher levels of policy learning in river basin management. Higher levels of policy learning are being reflected and/or consolidated in more advanced adaptation strategies for dealing with floods or droughts. These advanced adaptation strategies are characterized by: 1) a robust and flexible process; 2) polycentric, broad and horizontal stakeholder participation; 3) climate change scenario analyses; 4) risk assessments; 5) high diversity in management and physical interventions; 6) dealing with structural constraints of the management system itself.
IX
Moreover, the conclusions above support our initial assumption that effective AIWM is able to facilitate a change in strategy, as being an adaptation to climate change. As such, there is a reciprocal relationship between AIWM and the development of adaptation strategies. Moreover, our assumption is confirmed that this relationship is reciprocal only in a situation of bottom-up governance, including real participation of non-governmental stakeholders, but also from different government sectors, lower levels of government, and downstream stakeholders. This bottom-up process is emerging from partnerships and networks (Geels et al., 2004). An important hypothesis in the concept of social learning is that information management and social (cooperation) structures are interlinked (Pahl-Wostl & Sendzimir, 2005), which corresponds to the sociocognitive theory of information systems (Hemmingway, 1998). Hemmingway pays attention to the impacts of presented information on learning and action, and the centrality of the selection and organization of information to the nature of organizational forms. Our research confirms that information management and social (cooperation) structures are interlinked in the management systems under consideration. This interdependency can be described as the sociocognitive dimension of water management regimes. I have defined the socio-cognitive dimension as the integrated cognitive and social properties of complex governance systems and related processes, such as social learning, participation and cooperation processes. The socio-cognitive dimension is an essential emerging property of a water governance system, depending on a specific set of structural conditions. In particular, better integrated cooperation structures and advanced information management are structural conditions leading towards higher levels of policy learning. This socio-cognitive dimension is inherent to the adaptive capacity of water governance systems, and in systems where this dimension is absent or less developed there is lacking capacity for developing advanced adaptation strategies. The importance of the socio-cognitive dimension is directly related to the fact that climate change adaptation is a so-called ‘wicked’ problem, characterized by complexity, conflicting interests and an unpredictable future. Hence, in order to achieve institutional adaptation, certain elements need to be targeted, including adequate access and distribution of information, collaboration in terms of public participation and sectoral integration, flexibility and openness for experimentation. Based on significant correlations, this chapter also shows that there is a strong interdependence of the elements within a water management regime, and as such, this interdependence is a stabilizing factor in current management regimes. For example, this research provides evidence that a lack of joint/participative knowledge production is an important obstacle for cooperation, or vice versa. A substantial part of the discussion in chapter 7 revolves around the need to fine balance bottom-up approaches with centralized control (see also chapter 6). For large-scale, complex multiple-use systems, such as river basins, this research suggests that bottom-up governance and decentralization is not a straight forward solution to water management problems. There will probably always be the need for a certain degree of top-down governance (or centralization), for example in the area of trans-boundary issues, capacity building, setting of standards and conflict resolution. All the case-studies in this research seem to be in a process of finding a balance between bottom-up and top-down governance. In other words, this research has found evidence that the NeWater working hypothesis of bottom-up governance as an appropriate approach for river basin management needs to be adjusted, since the case study with the highest level of AIWM (Rivierenland) is characterized by a combination of top-down and bottom-up
X
processes. This is supported by the majority of experts in this research, indicating that there is a certain need for top-down governance in river basin management. Nevertheless, I also conclude that management regimes characterized by a high level of top-down governance are dominated by lower levels of learning (i.e., single loop learning / ad-hoc problem solving), such as the management regimes in the Alentejo Region, Amu Darya and Kagera Basin. This lower level of learning is being reflected and/or consolidated in less advanced adaptation strategies. The Hungarian part of the Tisza is also characterized by top-down governance, although they have managed to develop an advanced adaptation strategy (new Vásárhelyi Plan (VTT), 2003), probably caused by the existence of a shadow network in this specific case study. The VTT is an excellent example of double-loop learning and a modified flood defence strategy by local actors and research institutions. However, the current implementation of this plan is seriously hampered, since the centralized management system has not managed to find agreement between different Ministeries on the allocation of necessary (financial) resources. In other words, a high degree of top-down governance and a centralized system seems to be a serious limiting factor in this case study as well. Institutional design principles for climate change adaptation Chapter 8 provides an evidence-based and policy relevant contribution to understanding processes of climate change adaptation in the Netherlands, Australia and South Africa. It builds upon the work of Elinor Ostrom on institutional design principles for local common pool resources systems (1990, 2005). I argue that for dealing with uncertainties like climate change impacts (e.g. floods or droughts) additional or adjusted institutional design principles are necessary that facilitate learning processes. Especially since these governance systems are usually dealing with complex, open access and cross-boundary resource systems, such as river basins and delta areas in the Netherlands and South Africa or groundwater systems in Western Australia. In our case studies the jurisdictional and geographical scale but also the complexity and uncertainty related to the policy problem is larger. In this chapter I proposed and found empirical support for a set of nine institutional design principles for climate change adaptation in complex governance systems (see below table for an overview). Design Principle
Explanation
Robust and flexible process
based on transparency, transdisciplinarity, and flexibility (e.g. organizational redundancy);
Equal and fair (re-)distribution of risks, benefits and costs
requiring engagement with, and strong representation of, groups likely to be highly affected or especially vulnerable;
Collective choice arrangements
to enhance the participation of those involved in making key decisions about the system, in particular on how to adapt;
Monitoring and evaluation of the process
providing a basis for reflexive social learning and supporting accountability;
Conflict prevention & resolution mechanisms
including timing and careful sequencing, transparancy, trustbuilding, and sharing of (or clarifying) responsibilities;
Nested enterprises / polycentric governance
(in a multi-level context), as functional units to overcome the weakness of relying on either just large-scale or only smallscale units to govern complex resources systems;
XI
Policy experimentation
a purposeful and coordinated activity (e.g. pilot projects) geared to producing novel policy options;
An integrated approach/strategy tailor-made to local circumstances
taking into account multi-levels, cultural/historical circumstances, multi-issues, multi-perspectives and multiresources;
Policy learning
through exploring uncertainties, deliberating alternatives and reframing problems and solutions
These institutional design principles provide useful support for a “management as learning”-approach when dealing with complexities and uncertainties. This approach does not foster a narrow blue-print style but rather the opposite locally-appropriate institutions treated as experiments. The design principles have several potential uses in practice. First, by taking into account the issues they highlight, decision-exploring, making and evaluating steps at different levels of governance can be made more adaptive. In this type of application the design principles can be seen as diagnostic tools rather than blueprints for institutional reform. The specific solutions are almost always very highly context dependent. Second, the principles should be useful for exploring new, and refining existing adaptation strategies, by focusing more attention on their governance – in particular how decisions about particular strategies are reached and not just their technical content. This can help overcome the frequent neglect of power relations and interests in the making of “adaptation” policy. Third, the principles may be useful to not just planning agencies and processes of governments but also community-based organizations and the private sector interested in working with other stakeholders in pro-active approaches to adaptation. Several of the roles implied by the design principles may be taken up effectively in some situations by non-state actors and multi-stakeholder bodies. The initial set of design principles suggested need further testing and elaboration. In particular issues of generalizability and trust building deserve further exploration. The design principles proposed here arose from explicit consideration of water management challenges in the context of a changing climate. It is not yet clear to what extent these findings are generalizable to adaptation in the water sector in less developed country contexts or to other sectors. Trust building is clearly important to collective action and thus an important component of several design principles. More work is needed on how trust is built starting with areas that this chapter suggests, such as: early communication of uncertainties, joint/participative knowledge production, open access to, and shared information sources, transparency about the decision-making process, and sharing of responsibilities. PART IV – FUNCTIONING AND EFFECTIVENESS OF PARTICIPATION AND MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIAOGUES ON WATER AND CLIMATE – ZOOMING IN ON GENERAL PATTERNS Enhancing stakeholder participation in river basin management using group model building in the Tisza, Orange and Amu Darya basins Chapter 9 explains how cognitive mapping and group model building have been used for participative assessments in a European, a Central Asian, and an African river basin. Chapter 9 presents a qualitative comparative study of participation processes using cognitive mapping and group model building (GMB) in XII
the Tisza, Orange and Amu Darya basins. I use an analytical framework which covers the goals, the role of both scientists and stakeholders, the process initiation and methods framed by very different cultural, socio-economic and biophysical conditions. This chapter shows how GMB processes have been designed and how their results contribute to policy development. Participation processes play a crucial role in implementing adaptive and integrated water management in river basins. A range of different participative methods is being applied; however, little is known on their effectiveness in addressing the specific question or policy process at stake and their performance in different socio-economic and cultural settings. Across all three basins, the GMB processes produced a shared understanding among all participants of the major water management issues in the respective river basin and common approaches to address them. The “ownership of the ideas” by the stakeholders, i.e., the topic to be addressed in a GMB process, is important for their willingness to contribute to such a participatory process. Differences, however, exist in so far that cultural and contextual constraints of the basin drive the way in which the GMB processes have been designed and how their results contribute to policy development. Critical reflections on multi-stakeholder dialogues on water: experiences in the Netherlands, Australia, Mekong Region, and Portugal Chapter 10 provides some critical reflections on multi-stakeholder dialogues in the Netherlands, Australia, Mekong Region in South East Asia, and Portugal. Multi-stakeholder dialogues aim to create and support spaces in which meaningful conversations can take place among diverse stakeholder groups. A key notion is that dialogues can inform and help shape more formal negotiation and decision-making processes, by bringing in a wider range of perspectives on needs, impacts and options, and having them openly deliberated. I studied four very different dialogues about water resources management and development issues in four parts of the world (see above). In each case the primary unit of analysis was a particular event or cluster of closely related events, while recognizing that these were triggered by different factors (context related) and usually part of a larger process. A set of shared questions were used to guide the analysis of each case covering initiation, format, content and outcomes. I concluded that effectiveness of dialogues is clearly dependent upon not just the quality of participation and facilitation as is widely recognized, but also on the preparation and follow-up actions by conveners and participants around main events. It also appears that contextual factors may modify substantially the forms and effectiveness of common dialogue strategies, which deserves further systematic exploration. This study shows it is possible to draw comparative insights about the dialogues by using relatively simple questions about principle events. PART V – SYNTHESIS, OUTLOOK AND SPIN-OFFS Overall conclusions This dissertation is wrapped up by highlighting the most important methodological and conceptual advancements (Chapter 11). The last section of chapter 11 will also reflect on limitations of this research. The most important methodological advancements include:
An analytical framework for determining the level of adaptive and integrated water management (Chapter 3); XIII
An analytical framework for determining the level of policy learning (Chapter 4);
An analytical framework for assessing the scope and diversity of physical interventions in a river basin (Chapter 6);
An analytical framework for determining the outcome of participation processes based on mental mapping and causality models (Chapter 9);
An analytical framework for analyzing the functioning and effectiveness of multi-stakeholder dialogues (Chapter 10);
Using a formal technique for comparative analysis, called multi-value QCA. Not much work is available on comparative analyses of river basins including the full range of a water management regime’s complexity (Myint, 2005; Wolf, 1997). This research is one of the first of its kind in comparing complex water management regimes in a semi-quantitative way, but also by making operational the concepts of AIWM and policy learning. Additionally, the method (MultivalueQCA) for analyzing the relationship between regime characteristics and policy learning has not been applied in this specific way, neither in this specific field of climate change adaptation from a water governance perspective (Huntjens et al., 2008).
Group model building (GMB) for participatory assessments: The comparison of three GMB processes in an European, Asian and African river basin highlights that involving stakeholders in the analysis of water management barriers and potentials is both necessary and ambitious. Particularly the resulting models of the three processes show that GMB helps to look systematically at the integration of different knowledge frames, conflicting attitudes and ideas of what is wanted and needed. The analysis section of Chapter 9 shows that GMB does not necessarily lead to the implementation of a new water management but it offers important new insights what stakeholders think about ‘their basins’, which is an indispensable starting point to reshape the prevailing water management regime.
Transdisciplinary research: This PhD-research can be labelled as a policy-related trans-disciplinary research, which is defined as a combination of interdisciplinarity and a participatory approach, applied within the context of complex policy problems such as the governance of climate change adaptation (definition by author). The governance of adaptation to climate change calls for such a trans-disciplinary approach, since climate change adaptation displays the characteristics of so called complex or even wicked policy problems (Conklin, 2005). This implicates that simple disciplinary solutions will not suffice. Different social scientific disciplines provide different analyses and solutions. Other authors even argue that merely integrating knowledge from different disciplines is not sufficient and needs to be combined with a participatory approach (van Buuren and Edelenbos, 2004; von Korff, 2005; Alkan Olsson and Andersson, 2006; Reed, 2008; Pahl-Wostl 2007). In this research it means that stakeholders have been consulted and provided information for this study. The group model building (discussed in Chapter 9 and above) is an excellent example of such transdisciplinary research. Also the other Chapters (6-10) in this dissertation are characterized by transdisciplinary research, since the assessments are based on expert judgement, using a broad definition of expert, e.g. including water users (such as farmers and fishermen), related interest groups (e.g. water users or farmers associations), next to
XIV
government officials and policy makers from the local to the international level, representatives from civil society organizations and industry, and last but not least, consultants and researchers.
Based on the results of expert judgement, my ‘constructivist’ assumption is confirmed that in one single case study, there is wide variety of different knowledge frames, mental models and value opinions as regards a complex policy problem such as climate change adaptation. In conclusion, these observations highlight the importance of transdisciplinary research and the importance of public participation and stakeholder involvement to produce adequate adaptation strategies, by bringing in a wider range of perspectives on needs, impacts and options, and having them deliberated openly.
The most important conceptual advancements include:
Providing a contribution to a symbiogenesis of different concepts beneficial for developing adaptive approaches to water management and water governance. In concreto, this dissertation provides comparative analytical frameworks for policy-related transdisciplinary research, building on conceptual approaches such as adaptive and integrated water management, adaptive water governance, deliberative democracy, institutional change, institutional design principles, social learning and policy learning;
The notion of different responses to flood and droughts;
Discovery of significant correlations between different elements of a water management regime;
Key factors for policy learning & disclosure of the socio- cognitive dimension of water management;
Explaining underlying mechanisms of interdependency and the socio-cognitive dimension;
Influence of context on climate change adaptation;
Insights regarding process and content of developing advanced adaptation strategies;
Identification of obstacles and opportunities for climate change adaptation (see boxes below);
Institutional design principles for climate change adaptation;
Insights on functioning and effectiveness of participation and multi-stakeholder dialogues on water and climate
Overview of major obstacles to climate change adaptation:
Problems in organizational setup related to horizontal and vertical integration;
Problems of institutional spatial misfit and vertical interplay;
Lack of human capital (people skilled and educated for certain tasks);
XV
Low levels of awareness among decision makers on climate change issues: how will climate change, what the impacts will be, which adaptation is needed?
Lack of adequate financial resources for adaptation;
Lack of information and of exchange among the relevant actors
Spatial and temporal uncertainties associated with climate change projections
Interdependencies between regime elements might hamper change and transition
Overview of opportunities for climate change adaptation:
Trust building;
Dealing with uncertainties;
Integration between different policy fields and policy sectors
Appropriate economic instruments, such as public-private partnerships, cost recovery complemented by targeted subsidies, and insurance;
Fine-tuning centralized control with bottom-up approaches;
Adaptive Water Governance;
Mechanisms for facilitating social learning and policy learning (e.g. multi-stakeholder dialogues)
Influence of shadow networks (in top-down regimes)
Influence of institutionalized bottom-up processes, e.g. multi-stakeholder dialogues (with input from a variety of experts from different disciplines)
Future research on climate change adaptation from a water governance perspective Chapter 12 makes recommendations for promising future research themes regarding climate change adaptation from a water governance and social science perspective, by taking stock of the achievements of this PhD-research and international research. Important areas for future research include analyses of the capacity of institutions to adapt to climate change and the way in which institutional arrangements can enhance that capacity. Moreover, a better understanding is required of the underlying processes of climate change adaptation pertaining to trust building, conflict resolution and pursuits of social justice
XVI
among parties differentially vulnerable to floods or droughts, and the way in which 1) these processes, 2) the substance of adaptation processes and 3) institutional design principles affect each other. Other important areas for future research being addressed in Chapter 12 include: economic instruments, agency in adaptation, action research, multi-level and multi-sector interactions, governance modes, influence of context on climate change adaptation in water management, performance of water governance regimes in dealing with the impacts of climate change. Chapter 12 also makes methodological recommendations. For example, based on the confirmation of my constructivist assumption that in a single case study a wide variety exists of different knowledge frames, mental models and value opinions leads to my recommendations on ‘participatory’ or ‘collaborative’ action research. Especially when it concerns a complex policy problem such as climate change adaptation. A prerequisite for conducting policy related transdisciplinary research is then to have an equal and fair representation of stakeholders and experts (academic and non-academic) involved in the setting of the policy problem under investigation. This is not only important to evaluate, but also to produce, adequate adaptation strategies. Furthermore, this dissertation shows it is possible to combining in-depth case studies with more extensive and formal comparative analysis. By doing so, this dissertation shows that new scientific insights can be gained from comparatively analyzing water governance regimes, resulting in my recommendations (see chapter 12) that: 1) large comparative assessments and global databases are needed to make progress in our understanding and in developing context sensitive policy advice; 2) a diagnostic approach is required, taking into account complexity in a systematic fashion; 3) systematic reviews (meta-analyses) are necessary for synthesizing the available evidence to inform policy questions related to climate change adaptation from a water governance perspective. PhD Research spin-offs Chapter 13 provides a brief overview of spin-offs of this PhD research. It will show where results of my PhD research have been used for developing either new research or policy projects or for inclusion in scientific papers, policy papers or books. The following projects/products will be highlighted: 1.
As a direct result of this thesis six manuscript have been submitted to high ranking peer reviewed journals. So far, four manuscripts have been published in, or are currently in press, in the following journals: Regional Environmental Change, Ecology and Society, Environmental Policy and Governance and Water Resources Management. Two other manuscripts are still in review with Global Environmental Change and Water Resources Management.
2.
ASEM Waternet Scorecard: The analytical framework for determining the level of adaptive and integrated water management in this thesis has been used to develop the ASEM Waternet Scorecard. This scorecard was used to facilitate a comparison of ongoing work in the selected projects and river basins of ASEM Waternet (www.asemwaternet.org)
3.
Twin2Go: Coordinating twinning partnerships towards more adaptive governance in river basins (www.twin2go.uos.de). The aim of this EU funded project is to review and synthesize the research on adaptive and integrated water resources management in basins around the world. A key element for scaling up the results of the different IWRM projects is to elaborate a XVII
comprehensive methodological framework that allows evaluating all important attributes of adaptive water management and adaptive governance in the context of the impacts of and adaptation to climate change. Elements from several frameworks being developed in this dissertation have been used for developing the final methodological framework of Twin2Go 4.
Water Governance Cards; Several elements of the analytical frameworks developed in this thesis have been used to develop a methodology for assessing and testing the current state of water governance in partner countries of Dutch Development Aid. This methodology has been tested in Vietnam. Water Governance Cards is funded by the European project ASEMWaternet.
5.
This dissertation provided the foundations for a pilot project funded by the Netherlands government to develop a climate change adaptation strategy for the Vam Co River Basin in Long an Province in the Mekong Delta in Vietnam;
6.
Group model building for an environmental security assessment in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam (funded by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs);
7.
Cross-comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Strategies across Regions, A Synthesis product of EU NeWater and published in Water Resources Management by Krysanova et al. (2010);
8.
The Adaptive Water Resource Management Handbook, Earthscan, 2010, A Synthesis product of EU NeWater;
9.
Special issue in Ecology and Society on participation techniques in water resources management, A Synthesis product of EU NeWater;
10. European Commission Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive; 11. Conference papers and presentations for international conferences, seminars and other fora; 12. Extended articles in Dutch policy magazines, including Change Magazine and Openbaar Bestuur (Dutch journal on Public Administration)
XVIII
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter will provide the scope of this thesis (1.1), followed by a brief overview of the impacts of climate change on water resources and society (1.2), and related challenges (e.g. hazards and opportunities) in section 1.3. Other sections of this introduction include: important definitions used in this dissertation (1.4), research objective and questions (1.5), research context (1.6), research methodology (1.7), and finally, a reading guide (1.8).
1.1
SCOPE OF THIS THESIS
In many places climate-related events have become more frequent and more extreme (World Water Development Report, 2009). Even if we are able to stabilize the emissions of greenhouse gases today, increases in temperature and the associated impacts, including droughts and floods, will continue for many decades to come (European Environment Agency, 2007). Hence, climate change adaptation is vital and unavoidable. Today, millions of people are already suffering because of climate change (Human Impact Report, 2009; World Water Development Report, 2009). Climate change is an all encompassing threat, directly affecting the environment, the economy, health and safety. Many communities face multiple stresses with serious social, political and security implications, both domestically and abroad. Millions of people are uprooted or permanently on the move as a result (Human Impact Report, 2009). Many more millions will follow (see section 1.2 for more details). After failing to establish a new ambitious and binding climate agreement at the UN Conference of Parties (COP15) in Copenhagen in December 2009 the importance of climate change adaptation is rapidly increasing. Even the most ambitious climate agreement will take years to slow or reverse global warming, since the global carbon economy has been the basis of all productive efforts since centuries. Emissions are still steadily increasing, and the world population is set to grow by forty percent by 2050 (Human Impact Report, 2009). In other words, instead of stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions today, with the current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable development practices, global greenhouse gas emissions will continue to grow over the next few decades (IPPC, AR4, 2007). With unabated emissions, many trends in climate will likely accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts (IARU, 2009). At the same time, there are multiple lines of evidence that climate change is happening now, and the impacts are being seen now (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007; World Water Development Report, 2009; Human Impact Report, 2009; International Association of Research Universities (IARU), 2009). Even worse, recent observations show “Climate change is happening that greenhouse gas emissions and many aspects of the climate are changing near the upper (!) boundary of the IPCC range of more rapidly than anyone projections (IARU, 2009). Climate change is happening more thought possible” rapidly than anyone thought possible (Human Impact Report, 2009; IARU, 2009). Many key climate indicators are already moving beyond the patterns of natural variability within which contemporary society and economy have developed and thrived. These indicators include global mean surface temperature, sea-level rise, global ocean temperature, Arctic sea ice extent, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events (IARU, 2009).
Hence, it is increasingly recognized that we also need to be planning to adapt to the challenges and opportunities that a changing climate will bring. Managers and policy makers responsible for water and environment related issues are under pressure to respond to the unprecedented impacts of climate change such as larger floods, more severe droughts, sea level rise, coastal erosion, ecosystem degradation and reduction of Climate change adaptation is ecosystem services, water supply shortages, increase and new vital and unavoidable forms of pollution and water related diseases. If one takes into consideration that under present conditions climate variability is already important to successful management of water in many parts of the world in that it drives processes of local, national and regional adaptation (Palmer et al., 2008; Hallegatte, 2009), then climate change adds to the existing complexities of achieving just socio-economic development which involves multiple uses of water among growing numbers of users in ways that are both fair and sustainable (Lebel, 2007, 2009). Pro-active integration of climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and sustainable development strategies is often needed. However, we know, as yet, little about the ‘politics’ of how strategies actually work, e.g. in regard to trust building, conflict resolution and the way in which different interests are weighed against each other. Often, technical measures are not sufficient anymore, and public authorities, non-governmental organizations and private companies are looking for other solutions to ensure that the vulnerable water resources are managed in a sustainable manner. However, current institutional arrangements are often insufficient to manage these new challenges adequately and innovative and adaptive ways of governing water are required. Within this context, many countries are faced with great challenges to make their public governance system more resilient and flexible, for instance related to: 1) decentralization; 2) participative processes in decision-making; 3) dealing with uncertainties in decision-making, in particular related to the unpredictable future of climate change, for example by means of long term scenario analyses, risk assessments and vulnerability assessments; 4) involving the private sector in water management, for instance through public-private partnerships; 5) introduction of integrated water resources management and adaptive management concepts; 6) reorganizing and strengthening of central authorities; 7) introduction of water pricing or water rights policies; 8) implementation of anti-corruption measures. To deal with existing and new complexities water resources management must be able to respond to changes in the natural and social environment and to anticipate associated uncertainties (Folke et al., 2005; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007). For the past two decades, new, more integrated approaches to water management have been developed and are being implemented to address perceived shortcomings in earlier approaches. During the last decade, the principle of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) has, for example, been used as a framework for the implementation of such integrated approaches to water management (GWP-TAC, 2000). The IWRM concept is being defined as ‘a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems’ (GWP-TAC, 2000). This PhD-thesis recognizes the value of highly integrated solutions, although it argues that integrated water resource management (IWRM) concepts need to be strengthened, because IWRM is immature as a
2
2
management tool. As a review article stated: ‘There is still a long way to go to achieve a common understanding of IWRM and to develop and refine approaches for its successful implementation’ (Jonker, 2002. p. 719). More recently, adaptive management has been introduced as a concept that may complement missing elements of current approaches to IWRM (Pahl-Wostl, C & Sendzimir, J., 2005). Adaptation to climate change and management of related risks should be built into water resources management plans and programmes. Adaptive and integrated water management is considered to be an appropriate approach for doing so. The idea of adaptive management has been introduced in resources management for quite some time (Holling, 1978; Walters, 1986; Pahl-Wostl, 1995: Lee, 1999). It is based on the insight that the ability to predict future key drivers, as well as system behaviour and responses, is inherently limited. Adaptive management is a systematic process for improving management policies and practices by systemic learning from the outcomes of “Adaptive management is implemented management strategies and by taking into account learning to manage by changes in external factors (Pahl-Wostl et al, 2005). By re-evaluating managing to learn” goals, objectives and means how to achieve them as new information and insights become available, adaptive management is more responsive to changing conditions of and demands on ecosystems as compared to traditional approaches to water resource management. By doing so it explicitly recognizes uncertainty and complexity. Adaptive management may often require major transitions to implement and sustain enabling structural conditions. As Bormann et al. (1994) defined it: “Adaptive management is learning to manage by managing to learn”. In its most effective form it employs management programs that are designed to experimentally compare selected policies or practices, by evaluating alternative hypotheses about the system being managed (e.g. Gunderson, 1999; Richter et al, 3 2003). The goal of adaptive water management is to increase the adaptive capacity of the water system in a river basin based on a sound understanding of what determines a basin’s resilience and vulnerability. The problem to be tackled is to increase the ability of the whole system to respond to change rather than reacting to undesirable impacts of change.
1.2
IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON WATER RESOURCES AND SOCIETY
Climate change can directly affect the hydrologic cycle and, through it, the quantity and quality of water resources. An increase in the surface temperature of water, and changes in the hydrological cycle could result in changing rainfall patterns over the region. Some areas may experience intense rainfall resulting in heavy floods, while other areas may witness less rainfall, and also frequent droughts (IARU, 2009; World Water Development Report, 2009). Climatic changes can lower minimum flows in rivers, affecting water availability and quality for its flora and fauna and for drinking water intake, energy production
2
For argumentation and critical underpinning see chapter 2
3
This implies that hypotheses can be generated and that the outcomes of experiments allow distinguishing between different hypotheses. This is a very positivistic approach and the reality of complex socio-ecological systems may not allow such unambiguous conclusions (Pahl-Wostl, 2007). Learning may be also based on a more inductive approach where insights are derived from new information and dynamic hypotheses guide reasoning and structured argumentation. The generation of dynamic hypotheses embedded in a collective learning process should also sharpen the awareness to be prepared for the unexpected.
3
(hydropower), thermal plant cooling and transportation via rivers, channels and lakes. As a direct result, many sectors are extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climatic changes, in particular agriculture, fishery, industry, navigation, tourism, human health, public safety, biodiversity and environmental services from ecosystems (for example coastal protection by mangrove forests and buffering capacity by wetlands). In many places climate-related events have become more frequent and more extreme (IARU, 2009; World Water Development Report, 2009). On a global scale, yearly economic losses from extreme events rose tenfold between the 1950s and 1990s in inflation-adjusted dollars (IPCC, 2001). The dominant drivers of these upward trends are socioeconomic factors, such as population growth, land use change and greater use of vulnerable areas (World Water Development report, 2009). Climate change and its impacts have long been regarded as a distant environmental or future problem, but today climate change is already a major constraint on human efforts. It has been creeping up on the world for years, doing its deadly work by aggravating a host of other major problems affecting society, such as malaria and poverty (Human Impact Report, 2009). Some estimation on the global impacts of climate change on society today and in 2030 is presented in table 1.1.
Table 1.1 - Estimates of Suffering due to Climate Change in 2010 and 2030 (From: Human Impact Report, 2009)
Estimates of Suffering due to Climate Change in 2010: Deaths over 300,000 people per year Severely Affected over 300 million people Climate Displaced People over 20 million Economic Losses over US 100 billion dollar per year Estimates of Suffering due to climate change in 2030: Deaths approximately 500,000 per year Severely Affected approximately 650 million people Climate Displaced People more than 75 million Economic Losses over US 300 billion dollars per year
With global climate change and projected increases in global temperature, scientists generally agree that the hydrologic cycle will intensify and that extremes will become more common (IARU, 2009; IPCC, 2007; World Water Development Report, 2009). The most common extreme events are floods and droughts (World Water Development Report, 2009). For this reason these two extreme events will be the central focus of this PhD-research. In below section we will provide some examples of the impact of an increased intensity and frequency of floods and droughts on society.
4
Floods Floods can have positive as well as negative impacts. They recharge natural ecosystems, providing more abundant water for food production, health and sanitation. But floods also destroy lives, property and crops. As a result of crop losses food security can be at stake and worsen the levels of malnutrition. In developing countries extreme floods can result in many deaths, while in developed countries they can result in billions of Euros in damages. For example, since 1998 floods in Europe have caused some 700 deaths, the displacement of about half a million people and at least €25 billion in insured economic losses (European Environment Agency, 2007; see also figure 1.1). Globally, the number of great inland flood catastrophes was twice as large per decade between 1996 and 2005 as between 1950 and 1980, and economic losses were five times as great (World Water Development Report, 2009). The dominant drivers of these upward trends are socioeconomic factors, such as population growth, land use change and greater use of vulnerable areas. Figure 1.1 - Recurrence of flood events in Europe between 1998 and 2005 (Source: EEA, 2007, based on data from Dartmouth Flood Observatory)
5
Low flows and droughts Climate change is expected to influence precipitation, temperature and potential evapotranspiration and, through their combined effects, to influence the occurrence and severity of droughts. But it is diffcult to disentangle the impacts of climate change from those of other human influences (engineered effects and land use changes) and multi-decadal climate variability. More intense droughts, affecting more people and linked to higher temperatures and decreased precipitation, have been observed in the 21st century, in Europe and globally (Zhang et al., 2007), but are also frequently a consequence of the mismanagement of resources and the neglect of risk management (World Water Development Report, 2009). Over the past thirty years, Europe has been affected by several major drought episodes, most notably in 1976, 1989–1991, 2003 and 2005 (UNEP, 2004; EurAqua 2004; EC, 2006). Opinion is, however, divided (Hisdal et al., 2001) as to whether these events represent a significant trend or simply reflects natural climate variability (see EEA, 2006, Section 1.2.7). Although there is also a direct human component causing these droughts, the primary cause is a deficiency in rainfall, and the shift in timing of flows (Schröter et al., 2005). Climate-change models project more frequent and intense summer droughts across many parts of Europe, particularly in the southern part (Goodess et al., 2007). This may be further exacerbated because of an increasing demand for water as a result of elevated temperatures. Figure 1.2 shows 'water stress' — the predicted ratio of water withdrawals to availability by 2030. A similar pattern is found for heat waves. The high pressure system that developed over Western Europe in 2003 blocked moist air masses from the west and allowed warm, dry air masses from Northern Africa to move northwards. The result was large precipitation deficits and record-breaking temperatures across most of Central and Southern Europe, with drought conditions lasting from March to September (World Water Development report, 2009).
Health Climate change is likely to be the biggest global threat to health of the 21st century (World Health Organization, 2009). Catastrophic weather events, variable climates that affect food and water supplies, new patterns of infectious disease outbreaks, and emerging diseases linked to ecosystem changes, are all associated with global warming and pose health risks. Climate and weather already exert strong influences on health: through deaths in heat waves, and in natural disasters such as “Climate change is likely to be floods, as well as influencing patterns of life-threatening vectorthe biggest global threat to borne diseases such as malaria. Climatic conditions affect diseases health of the 21st century” transmitted through water, and via vectors such as mosquitoes (Kalkstein, 1993). Climate-sensitive diseases are among the largest global killers. Diarrhea, malaria and protein-energy malnutrition alone caused more than 3 million deaths globally in 2004, with over one third of these deaths occurring in Africa (World Health Organization, 2009). Intense short-term fluctuations in temperature can also seriously affect health – causing heat stress (hyperthermia) or extreme cold (hypothermia) – and lead to increased death rates from heart and respiratory diseases (Haines et al., 2006). Recent studies suggest that the record high temperatures in Western Europe in the summer of 2003 were associated with a spike of an estimated 70 000 more deaths than the equivalent periods in previous years (World Health Organization, 2009). 6
More variable rainfall patterns are likely to compromise the supply of fresh water leading to various problems like a lack of water intake culminating in dehydration or water-borne diseases like dysentery, diarrhea, etc.. Globally, water scarcity already affects four out of every 10 people. A lack of water and poor water quality can compromise hygiene and health. This increases the risk of diarrhea, which kills approximately 2.2 million people every year, as well as trachoma (an eye infection that can lead to blindness) and other illnesses (World Health Organization, 2009).
Figure 1.2 - Water stress in European river basins under a base-line scenario by 2030 (Source: EEA, 2005)
Food security Agriculture is certainly one of the most vulnerable socio-economic sectors due to climate change. Next to the devastating effects on crops by floods and droughts, the change in surface air temperature and rainfall patterns can affect the soil conditions and thereby the growth of crops in different regions. Food security can be at stake and worsen the levels of malnutrition. Especially the livelihoods of the poor, who even otherwise live on the margin, can be adversely affected by climate-related extreme events. Failure of crops due to either floods or drought or rise in temperature can seriously limit their income. It should be noted here that agricultural impacts are expected to be more adverse in tropical areas than in temperate areas (FAO, 2007). Developed countries will largely be beneficiaries: cereal productivity is projected to be 7
higher in Canada, northern Europe and parts of the former Soviet Union compared with what it would have been in the absence of climate change (FAO, 2007). However, FAO does not take into account to what extent these developed countries are able to prevent devastating effects on crops by floods and droughts, a risk which will be substantially increased due to climate change (IPCC, 2007). For example, agricultural production in the Netherlands is reduced by 5 to 35 % because of water shortages (National Safety Report, Netherlands Ministry of Domestic Affairs, Netherlands, 2006). This means an average economical damage of 180 million Euros/year, and even 1800 million Euros/year in extreme years (Netherlands Ministry of Domestic Affairs, 2006).
Environmental services Climate change is expected to lead to serious degradation of ecosystem services, to the increased likelihood of nonlinear changes, and to exacerbation of poverty for people dependent on these ecosystems. Moreover, ecosystems play an important role in natural hazard regulation (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), by its capacity to buffer from extreme events. Ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, flood protection and protection against soil erosion are directly linked to climate change and healthy ecosystems are an essential defence against some its most extreme impacts. Since climate change is expected to result in loss of wetlands, forests, and mangroves, the natural hazard regulation is also likely to be negatively affected. At the same time, this buffering capacity of ecosystems is needed more and more, since climate change is causing more extreme events. In other words, the impact of climate change on ecosystems takes a double-edged character in increasing the vulnerability of society. Moreover, worldwide migration patterns clearly indicate that people increasingly are occupying regions exposed to extreme events (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). As a matter of fact, 90% of the world’s population is currently living in river basins (World Bank, 2006).
1.3
CHALLENGES: HAZARDS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Based on identified trends, the future will see increased pressure on water resources and changes in the patterns and magnitudes of resource availability related to changing climate patterns. Within the context of climate change the management of water resources is afflicted with uncertainties: unpredictability of development, incomplete knowledge or conflicting perspectives on the seriousness of a problem, its causes and potential solutions (Pahl-Wostl, 2007; Isendahl et al 2010). Nowadays uncertainties increase since pace and dimension of changes (e.g. climatic, demographic) are accelerating and are likely to increase even more in the future. Hence it is crucial to find pragmatic ways to deal with them in water management practice. Challenges for water management in a changing climate include the following (adjusted from Pahl-Wostl & Sendzimir, 2005):
Sustainable management of water resources cannot be realized unless current water management regimes undergo a transition towards more adaptive water management.
To cope with uncertainties, adaptive management is needed as a systematic process for improving management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of implemented management strategies.
A key element is the active involvement of stakeholders in the process of developing, implementing and monitoring of water management plans. 8
For these reasons, integrated, adaptive approaches seem crucial. However, the change towards more integrated, adaptive approaches is slow and empirical data and practical experience limited. One possible reason for this lack of innovation is the strong interdependence of the factors stabilizing current management regimes (Pahl-Wostl & Sendzimir, 2005). One cannot, for example, move easily from topdown to participatory management practices without changing the whole approach to information and risk management and collaboration structures. Hence, research is urgently needed to better understand the interdependence of key elements of water management regimes and the dynamics of adaptation and transition processes in order to be able to compare and evaluate alternative management regimes and to implement and support transition processes if required (adjusted from Pahl-Wostl & Sendzimir, 2005). The ultimate objective of this PhD research is to strengthen the conceptual foundations and practical value of adaptive approaches to water management and water governance. While climate change represents a huge challenge, it also represents an opportunity for innovation in the management of water resources and sustainable development of a modern economy, especially by means of new growth (e.g. wind and solar energy, development of green infrastructure, (sustainable) production of biofuels, desalinization, thermal combustion, wastewater recycling, and technologies for carbon-neutral housing, carbon-neutral transportation and industries, etcetera). The economic opportunities and (potential) innovations triggered by the necessity of climate change adaptation are tremendous. However, the levels of investment costs and funds directed to climate change adaptation are very limited so far. For example, the multilateral funds that have been pledged for climate change adaptation across developing countries currently amount to about $400 million (Doyle, 2009). However, experts and aid agencies estimate that the true cost of adaptation in developing countries 4 ranges from $4 to $86 billion with an average of $32 billion annually (Watkins, 2007; World Resources Institute, 2009). It is noteworthy that only a very small proportion of global humanitarian assistance goes into disaster preparedness even though this is a crucial and worthwhile investment. Some experts estimate that for every euro invested in disaster preparedness, six euro could be saved in reconstruction costs (UNEP, 2004). Such a return rate on “For every euro invested in investments is an important consideration to be taken into account by disaster preparedness, six politicians and society as a whole, especially in times of financial crises euro could be saved in as we speak. Hence, the necessary investment costs for climate reconstruction costs” change adaptation might seem high, but the cost of adaptation is far less than the cost of inaction. The costs allocated to climate change adaptation will safeguard past investments in development that have been sourced over decades mainly from public coffers. Much of this public money is at great risk today. The Stern Report estimated the cost of ignoring climate change at more than that of the two World Wars and the Great Depression, or 5-20 percent of GDP (Stern et al., 2006). Within the context of climate change adaptation it especially important to consider the climate-waterenergy nexus. There are many aspects of this complex interaction. Examples include: (i) the increasing use
4
UNFCCC estimates 28 – US $67 billion in 2030; Oxfam estimates US $50 billion; World Bank estimates US $9-41 billion in developing countries today; Stern estimates US $4-37 billion in developing countries today; UNDP HDR estimates US $86 billion in 2015. Source: Human Impact Report, 2009
9
of desalination plants in coastal cities (e.g. in Australia, several middle east countries and in the United States) to augment dwindling water supplies, and the types of energy sources used to power the desalination plants; (ii) production of biofuels, which inevitably involves water usage and thus competes with food production and other uses for water, and (iii) household energy and water use. Each of these has significant implications for climate change adaptation, water governance and for institutional design and structure. Over many generations the human race has shown an amazing ability to adapt and adjust to climate variability and increasing pressure on resources (World Water Development Report, 2009). There are many examples of countries that have managed their scarce resources efficiently and effectively, despite low rainfall and streamflows (World Water Development Report, 2009). However, some adaptation actions that are taken may increase vulnerability rather than reduce it. Some examples of this "maladaptation" are sea level rise or flood protection infrastructure that may disturb the natural dynamic nature of coastal and river systems, or cooling or water supply technologies that may increase energy consumption.
1.4
DEFINITIONS
Some definitions of important concepts used throughout this thesis are described here. Adaptation to climate change is defined by Adger et al. (2005, p.78) as: “An adjustment in ecological, social or economic systems in response to observed or expected changes in climatic stimuli and their effects and impacts in order to alleviate adverse impacts of change or take advantage of new opportunities. Adaptation can involve both building adaptive capacity thereby increasing the ability of individuals, groups, or organisations to adapt to changes, and implementing adaptation decisions, i.e. transforming that capacity into action. Both dimensions of adaptation can be implemented in preparation for or in response to impacts generated by a changing climate.” Water governance can be defined as a range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to regulate development and management of water resources and provisions of water services at different levels of society (UNDP, 2000). Water management regime can be defined as “the whole complex of technologies, institutions (= formal and informal rules), environmental factors, and paradigm that together form a base for the functioning of the management system targeted to fulfil a societal function” (Pahl-Wostl, 2008). Due to the high level of interconnectedness and internal logic, individual elements of a regime cannot be exchanged arbitrarily (Pahl-Wostl, 2008). The above definition is closely related to the definition of a regime in political sciences. The most commonly used definition in political sciences is that of Krasner (1983): “implicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area. Principles are beliefs of fact, causation, and rectitude. Norms are standards of behaviour defined in terms of rights and obligations. Rules are specific prescriptions or proscriptions for action. Decision-making procedures are prevailing practices for making and implementing collective choice.” Regime theory strives to explain the formation, properties and consequences of these (international) regimes (Mayer et al., 1993). In contract to international regimes that have been assumed to unfold around a single institution (e.g. the Kyoto Protocol or the UN Convention on Biological Diversity) a water management regime is assumed to unfold around a societal function (e.g. water supply, pollution control, 10
flood protection) (Pahl-Wostl, 2008). This gives the definition a constructivist character since societal functions are continuously reinterpreted and enacted by regime actors (Pahl-Wostl, 2008). Institutions are defined as: “systems of rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that give rise to social practices, assign roles to the participants in these practices, and guide interactions among the occupants of the relevant roles” (Young, 2002). Adaptive capacity is an indication of the capacity to deal with change and disturbance, and reflects learning through knowledge sharing and responding to feedbacks (Walker et al. 2004, Folke et al. 2003, Olsson et al. 2004). Increasing the ability of systems to adapt, or building their adaptive capacity, is becoming an important consideration to prepare and respond to climatic changes: systems with high adaptive capacities can thus retain their integrity under a broader range of conditions than systems with low adaptive capacities (Smit and Wandel 2006). In social systems, adaptive capacity refers to the ability to learn from mistakes (Adger 2003) and to generate experience of dealing with change (Berkes et al. 2003), which in turn largely depends on the ability of individuals and their social networks to innovate (Armitage 2005). Adaptive management is a systematic process for improving management policies and practices by systemic learning from the outcomes of implemented management strategies and by taking into account changes in external factors (Pahl-Wostl et al, 2005). Stakeholders: In this dissertation stakeholder includes all persons, groups and organizations with an interest or “stake” in an issue, either because they will be affected or because they may have some influence on its outcome. This includes individual citizens and companies, economic and public interest groups, government bodies and experts. Public includes all non-governmental stakeholders. Social learning means that people learn new behavior through observational learning of the social factors in their environment. If people observe positive, desired outcomes in the observed behavior, then they are more likely to model, imitate, and adopt the behavior themselves (Bandura, 1977). By focusing on cognitive processes of individuals this concept does not take into account the development of learning processes at the group level. As pointed out by Röling (2002) one has to move from individual “multiple cognitions” to interrelated “distributed cognition” and to an understanding of group processes in order to capture the essence of social learning for resources management. Learning concepts applied to whole social entities can be mainly found in work on organizational learning such as Argyris and Schön (1978, 1996); Boonstra (2004), Senge, (1990) or Wenger (1998). Such concepts emphasize the development of shared meanings, collective mental models and codified practices that characterize the social entity as a whole (Pahl-Wostl, 2002b, 2006b). Policy learning is defined policy learning as a 'deliberate attempt to adjust the goals or techniques of policy in the light of the consequences of past policy and new information so as to better attain the ultimate objects of governance' (Hall, 1988: 6). Policy learning involves a socially-conditioned discursive or argumentative process of development of cognitive schemes or frames which questions the goals and assumptions of policies (Sanderson, 2002: 6).
11
1.5
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE AND QUESTIONS
In this PhD research I intend to gather insights and experiences on climate change adaptation from case studies in Europe, Africa, Asia and Australia, in order to strengthen the conceptual foundations and practical value of adaptive and integrated approaches to water management. This research has an explorative character in order to identify general patterns in the characteristics of adaptive and integrated water management (AIWM) and its role in developing climate change adaptation strategies. The ultimate objective of this research is split up in three key research objectives: 1
To identify specific configurations of conditions in adaptive and integrated water management that lead to different adaptations (see chapter 6) and higher levels of policy learning (see chapter 7) in river basin management;
2
To identify obstacles and opportunities for climate change adaptation in water management;
3
By comparing processes of developing climate change adaptation strategies this research intends to build empirical support for identifying and understanding institutional design principles for climate change adaptation (see chapter 8);
Based on the research objectives the following seven research questions have been deducted: 1
How to determine the level of adaptive and integrated water management in dealing with climaterelated extreme events in each case-study? See chapter 3;
2
How to determine the output or outcome of a water management regime? See chapter 4;
3
How to assess and compare complex water management regimes in order to identify general patterns? See comparative method in chapter 5 and analytical frameworks used in chapter 6-10;
4
Based on formal comparative analyses, what is the relationship between water management regimes and the output of these regimes? Output is defined either in terms of adaptation measures (see chapter 6) or levels of policy learning (see chapter 7);
5
Based on formal comparative analyses, what determines the adaptive capacity of a regime? And what are the obstacles and opportunities for climate change adaptation? See chapter 6-10;
6
Based on an exploratory study as well as theoretical insights, what may be appropriate institutional design principles for adaptation strategies in complex, multi-level, governance systems? See chapter 8;
7
Based on an exploratory study as well as theoretical insights, how can participation and multistakeholder dialogues on water be made more effective? Chapter 9-10;
1.6
RESEARCH CONTEXT
This thesis was developed within the context of the European research project NeWater (New Approaches to Adaptive Water Management under Uncertainty), under contract from the European Commission, Contract no. 511179 (GOCE), Integrated Project in PRIORITY 6.3 Global Change and Ecosystems in the 6th EU Framework Programme.
12
The NeWater project was executed from January 2004 until May 2009. The core aim of NeWater was to understand and facilitate change to adaptive strategies for integrated water resource management. These strategies were tailored to the different elements of the water system such as the institutional, cultural, environmental, and technological settings of river basins. They took into account the vulnerability of human, society and eco-systems and studied the adaptive capacity of the individual basins. More than 200 deliverables have been produced, many of them directly feeding into scientific publications or online tools. For more information see: www.newater.info th
The field research related to chapter 9 and 10 was co-funded by the European 6 Framework project ASEMWaternet (www.asemwaternet.org). ASEM Waternet is a multi-stakeholder and scientific platform on water resources management, including 35 participating organizations from Europe and Asia. Duration of the project was from September 2005 until November 2009.
1.7
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This section will provide an overview of research methods, which might differ per research activity. The key characteristics of research methods being used during this PhD-research can be categorized in the following:
Policy-related transdisciplinary research (see 1.6.1), based on literature reviews and analysis of primary data sources such as documents about the process events, water policies and other project plans, and interviews with participants or conveners involved in their preparation, implementation and follow-up;
(Formal) comparative case study analyses (see 1.6.2), combining in-depth case studies with more extensive and formal comparative analysis, including multi-value QCA and correlation tests;
Knowledge elicitation tools (see 1.6.3), such as expert judgment by means of interviews and questionnaires for scoring and weighting indicators, stakeholder workshops, cognitive mapping and group model building.
POLICY-RELATED TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH This PhD-research can be labeled as a policy-related transdisciplinary research, which is defined as a combination of interdisciplinarity and a participatory approach, applied within the context of complex policy problems such as the governance of climate change adaptation (definition by author). The governance of adaptation to climate change calls for such a transdisciplinary approach, since climate change adaptation displays the characteristics of so called complex or even wicked policy problems (Conklin, 2005). This implicates that simple disciplinary solutions will not suffice. Different social scientific disciplines provide different analyses and solutions. Other authors even argue that merely integrating knowledge from different disciplines is not sufficient and needs to be combined with a participatory approach (van Buuren and Edelenbos, 2004; von Korff, 2005; Alkan Olsson and Andersson, 2006; Reed, 2008; Pahl-Wostl 2007). In our research it means that stakeholders are consulted and provided information for our study. Whereas interdisciplinarity suggests that a common problem is solved jointly by different disciplines (Hinkel, 2008), transdisciplinary research aims at transcending disciplinary boundaries (Mittelstraβ, 2005).
13
Transdisciplinarity is, however, not seen as substitute to interdisciplinarity, but as a complementary problem-oriented research principle; it means lateral thinking against established disciplines, methods and institutions without however aiming at creating new disciplines (Hinkel, 2008). For a more detailed discussion of concepts such as multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity, I refer to Balsiger (2004) and Klein (1990). In this thesis the concept of transdisciplinarity is used in a wider sense to refer to the collaboration between scientific and non-scientific participants (Balsiger, 2004; see section 1.6.3 for more details). In this understanding knowledge integration also needs to respect traditional or tacit knowledge (Komiyama and Takeuchi, 2006). Via beneficial collaboration, both scientists and stakeholders come closer to ‘the nature of the problems’ (Pahl-Wostl, 2007c; Hart, 1986; Hodgson, 1992; von Korff, 2005). Transdisciplinary research implies an integration of both academic participants and non-academic participants, such as water managers and the public. Academic participants are researchers; nonacademic participants are societal actors such as policy makers, representatives of administration or interest groups, locals or the broader public. The expression ‘non- academic participants’ does not mean that these societal actors may not have an academic education but their role in the project does not serve academic purposes in the way the role of the researchers does.
(FORMAL) COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ANALYSES Not much work is available on comparative analyses of river basins including the full range of a water management regime’s complexity (Myint, 2005; Wolf, 1997). Many studies on water resources management are descriptive and limited to recording success or failure of single cases. The initial comparisons in this research will help develop and test protocols (Breitmeier et al., 1996) that open the way for efforts at broader generalizations about options for institutional designs and procedures with a special emphasis on assessing what does and doesn’t work well with respect to adaptive and integrated water management and institutional design principles for climate change adaptation. Additionally, our research will be innovative in terms of methodologies and research methods. For example, by combining in-depth case studies with more extensive and formal comparative analysis we can to some extent use the strengths of one method to compensate for limitations inherent in the other. This explorative research has taken the research problem, rather than a favourite methodology, to determine the research approach, and both the quantitative and qualitative aspects have been and can be used in a consonant manner (Leon, P. de, 1998). As such it is possible to combine the qualities of the case-oriented approach with the qualities of the variable-oriented approach (Berg-Schlosser, et al., 2008). Case studies The case studies in the NeWater project have been selected based on the premises that they represent the whole spectrum of traditional water management (command and control regimes) and adaptive and integrated water management regimes (management as learning approach). Primary data has been collected in the period of 2004-2005 by means of baseline assessments by the NeWater case study teams. This information has been used for providing general case study descriptions in this section. More details on the institutional settings of each case study can be found in the empirical chapters 6 to 10.
14
This thesis is taking a multi-level governance approach (see section 2.7), focusing on conditions and processes at the sub basin level (e.g. the administrative level of regional water management authorities), but being embedded in a wider context (e.g. institutional setting at different levels). The sub basin level is conceived as the level where all elements of adaptive and integrated water management are at play. At the same time this level is influencing, or is being influenced by, higher and lower levels. This central position also allows for assessing the outcomes of a water management regime at the operational level, since the management on the sub basin level (e.g. water board or regional water authority) is influenced by international or national regulation, while implementing at the operational/local level.
Number of flood and drought disasters in the past decades per case study Total number of flood and drought disasters
12 10 Rivierenland Alentejo Hungarian Tisza Ukrainian Tisza
8 6
Vaal catchment, SA Lower Amudarya Ohre Basin Kagera
4 2 0 1978-1987
1988-1997
1998-2007
Time period
Figure 1.3 – Number of reported flood and drought disasters in the past decades in eight sub basins under investigation. Based on data from EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database (Huntjens et al., 2008).
On a global scale the number of disasters caused by weather-related phenomena such as storms, floods and droughts has more than doubled over the past decade, from 175 in 1996 to 391 in 2005 (IFRC, 2007). The same trend is being observed in the case-studies under investigation (Figure 1.3), which include the following: 1
Rivierenland and the IJsseldelta in the Netherlands, as two case-studies in the (Lower) Rhine River Basin. With anticipated climatic changes the Rhine delta river branches will have to accommodate ever-higher extreme discharges. According to recent research on climate change, severe floods and droughts are expected to occur more often in the Rhine basin. Even now, high river discharges and floods take place regularly (e.g. in 1995 and 1998). After years of increasing the height of embankments, other types of measures, like creating more room for the river, are currently being implemented. Moreover, increasing attention is paid to upstream and downstream effects of measures, which triggers transboundary cooperation.
2
Alentejo region in Portugal, as a case study of the Guadiana River Basin; The lower Guadiana in the Alentejo region is located in the border area with Spain. The main characteristics are: important pressures due to domestic water use and insufficient fulfillment of demands, occupation of the Hydraulic Public Domain by infrastructures and urban development, and problems with saltwater intrusion (soil salinity and wetland damages). The strongest expected 15
impacts of climate change are mainly related with droughts, an increase in crop water requirements (and therefore a decrease in crop production and yields), and a loss of natural habitats and biodiversity. 3
Hungarian part of the Upper Tisza; Situated nearly in the geographical centre of Europe, the Tisza basin belongs to the large European basins and is one of the biggest tributaries of the Danube. Its outstanding natural ecological values are extremely endangered of the excess and shortage of water, the multiple hazards of diffuse and point source pollution, and the very high all-European political, social and economic concerns.
4
Ukrainian part of the Upper Tisza (also called the Zacarpathian Tisza); the key reason to select two case studies in the Tisza Basin is because the international Tisza river basin is situated at the current borderline of the EU (e.g. Hungary and Ukraine) and thus the national and regional water management might follow different frameworks for the one river. Nevertheless, the Ukraine shows strong incentives to enter the EU community and thus the EU acquis communautaire is used as key reference for the development of its water management principles.
5
Ohre Basin in Czech Republic, as a case study in the Elbe River Basin; The mainly Czech-German Elbe basin is experiencing all three major water-related problems: floods, droughts, and having water of inadequate quality.
6
Kagera Basin in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania, as a case study in the Nile River Basin; the economies of the countries in the Kagera Basin depend largely on subsistence agriculture. With little artificial water supply (irrigation) in agriculture, statistics show therefore a high correlation of the national income with precipitation records. The very limited extent of other economic sectors in these countries also limits the marketing of agricultural products, the possibility to invest in (supplemental) irrigation and results almost automatically in food security issues. The vulnerability of these countries to climate change, and more specifically to climate variability is high.
7
Lower AmuDarya in Uzbekistan, as a case study in the AmuDarya River Basin; research activities in the Amudarya case study focused on the Uzbek part of the Amudarya river delta, while at the same time transboundary issues have been taken into account as well. With irrigated agriculture at shares above 30% of the economies, water resources are of strategic importance for all of the basin countries. Overuse of the river’s water resources to support mainly high cotton production has caused severe degradation of agricultural soils, of the semi-natural ecosystems along the river's course and of the Aral Sea. Adding to the pressure and uncertainty, all five riparian countries have to varying extents initiated (water) reforms and restructuring of agriculture.
8
Upper Vaal catchment in South Africa, as a case study in the Orange River Basin; the basin is among the most water rich and simultaneously water scarce regions in Africa, with runoff disproportionately distributed. This has resulted in extensive regulation of water resources with the construction of large dams and several water transfer schemes. The water resources are also considered to be close to maximally utilized or developed. In addition, the basin is characterized by hydro-climatic conditions that render the basin a high risk natural environment, with low conversion of rainfall to runoff, high aridity in parts, strong rainfall seasonality and in many areas
16
a short rainy season. As a result the basin may be more threatened by climate change than many other regions of the world where there is more abundant water. Source: Knoesen et al., (2009). In the last two empirical studies (see chapter 9 and 10) we have included two additional case-studies. Field research for these two chapters was co-financed by ASEMWaternet. 9
Western Australia: The State of Western Australia (WA) covers approximately one-third of the Australian mainland and includes climate regions ranging from tropical to desert to Mediterranean. The southwest of WA, which has a Mediterranean climate, has experienced a pattern of reduced rainfall and even greater reductions in streamflows since the late 1970s. Droughts in 1998, and especially in 2001-2002, have triggered unprecedented action in water management. Climate change projections are that the recent (first decade of 21st century) dry conditions in the southwest, which have also been experienced in many other parts of southern Australia, are likely to continue. Projections for further declines in runoff from catchments indicate that the southwest is expected to receive 5% to 40% less runoff in the 2030 period relative to 1990 (Jones et al., 2006; Berti et al., 2007). At the same time, WA has experienced rapid population growth. Within this context WA understands that it must make better use of its water resources. This means improved efficiency and productivity of water use and better use of water markets to optimize the economic benefits that water brings. WA understands that it must secure water supplies for current and future needs, including from a range of new sources that rely less on rainfall given the clear threat climate change poses to traditional water sources. Water restrictions have been put in place in response to the severe droughts.
10
Mekong Region; The Mekong Basin is located in South-East Asia and includes 6 countries, i.e. China, Lao PDR, Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia. The Mekong Basin is densely populated, with approximate 65 million inhabitants dependent on the Mekong to sustain their livelihood. At the same time the Mekong region provides staple diet, mainly rice, for a total of perhaps 300 million people. The Mekong region is one of the most vulnerable in the world to the long term impacts of climate change, due to a relatively high proportion of people living on low incomes and regional low government capacity to deal with more extreme floods, prolonged drought and sea level rise associated with climate change.
For a geographical overview of the case study locations see figure 1.4.
17
Figure 1.4 – Geographical overview of case study locations (developed by Christian Knieper (USF), using Wikimedia Commons)
KNOWLEDGE ELICITATION TOOLS Expert judgment Expert judgment has been used as a method for knowledge elicitation. The list of potential experts for each case-study was developed in cooperation with the case-study teams of NeWater, with the objective of selecting a group of respondents with enough knowledge on the case-study under consideration, and the ability to answer the whole questionnaire (see section below), or at least a major part of it. The term ‘expert’ has been used in its broadest definition, meaning that experts may include water users, such as farmers and fishermen, related interest groups, such as water users or farmers associations, next to government officials and policy makers from the local to the international level, representatives from civil society organizations and industry, and last but not least, consultants and researchers. We are aware of the possibility of differential biases, given that some case studies are more open societies than others, and what is "truth" or which "truth" should be communicated to whom can be quite different in different cultures. In this paper we have tried to reduce biased results by including the perspectives from civil society, (independent) researchers, and other non-governmental parties, next to government officials.
18
For the field research a total number of 190 responses from experts in 20 countries have been collected, either by means of interviews (59%), questionnaires (15%) or workshops (26%). The interviews and workshops were conducted on the spot in 11 case studies (see 1.6.2). The countries include the following: Netherlands, Germany, Portugal, Czech Republic, Hungary, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Lao PDR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, China, Thailand, Australia, South Africa, Lesotho, Botswana, Uganda, Rwanda, and Tanzania. Standardized questionnaires and interviews By using standardized questionnaires, or using these questionnaires for standardized interviews, qualitative data was being collected in such a way that it was possible to compare weighted averages on each separate indicator (see analytical framework in chapter 3). The weighted average has been calculated by multiplying each individual score by the weight which respondents assigned to it; the total sum of all respondents in one case-study was then divided by the total assigned weight (by adding up all weights assigned to this specific indicator). Furthermore, the level of inconsistency (standard deviation) for each variable has been calculated, next to ‘Independent Samples T Tests’, in order to test for significant differences between the case-studies. The reason for developing standardized answering options in the questionnaire is that it supports a formal comparative analysis of the results (see section 1.6.2). Furthermore, the questionnaire allows for assigning weights to each indicator. In this way it is possible to aggregate multiple indicators, resulting in a score for one variable, or for aggregated variables, resulting in a score for one meta-variable (e.g. category of variables). Cognitive mapping and group model building There exists a wide range of very different methodologies for initiating, enhancing, facilitating and supporting participation and stakeholder processes. In this thesis, we focus on cognitive mapping and Group Model Building (GMB), since it is increasingly gaining attention in the field of complex decisionmaking, public policy making and implementation (Vennix 1999; Rouwette et al., 2000; Zagonel and Rohrbaugh 2007), and in particular as a useful method for stakeholder participation in water management for developing and improving decision support models as well as integrating existing information with stakeholder knowledge (Wolfenden 1999; Stave 2002, 2003; Exter 2004; Hare et al., 2006). GMB is defined as … [a collection of]… pieces of a facilitated group exercise and of techniques used to construct joint kind-of-model representations of the system that move a group forward in a systems thinking intervention (according to Andersen and Richardson, 1997). During GMB scientists work directly with stakeholder groups on key problems / decisions since the method assumes that there is a lot of knowledge among the participants, and key elements and relationships can be worked out together more effectively. GMB exercises make mental models explicit (also called cognitive mapping) and bring many of them up to a synthesis. Exter (2004) and Hare et al. (2006) show that system dynamics GMB, in particular, has the potential to facilitate stakeholder learning and assist stakeholders to think holistically about the complex systems they are trying to manage. In chapter 9 we compare three different GMB processes in three different river basins: the Tisza (Western Ukraine), the Amu Darya (Uzbekistan) and the Orange (South Africa).
19
1.8
READING GUIDE
This dissertation comprises of five major parts: Part I – Introduction and conceptual background Chapter 1 provides the scope of this thesis, the problem setting and challenges for water management in a changing climate, key definitions, research objectives and questions, and the research methodology; Chapter 2 provides the conceptual and theoretical background of this dissertation. Part II – Methodological advancements Chapter 3 provides an analytical framework for assessing the level of adaptive and integrated water management (AIWM). This framework will be used for a comparative study to identify general patterns in adaptive and integrated water management, and to determine its role in developing physical interventions in a river basin (Chapter 6), but also its role in developing climate change adaptation strategies to deal with either floods or droughts (Chapter 7). In Chapter 4, a second and independent framework has been developed for assessing the levels of policy learning being observed in the adaptation strategies of each water management regime. The adaptation strategies for dealing with floods and/or droughts are being defined as an output of a water management regime. The framework for assessing the levels of policy learning has been used for comparative analyses in chapter 7 and 8. Finally, part II introduces a method (in chapter 5) known as qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), which is based on Boolean comparative logic. This chapter presents a detailed description of how multivalueQCA (mvQCA) has been used to identify how different types of interactions among independent variables in AIWM are related to the level of policy learning in river basin management. The method has been used (in chapter 7) for a formal comparative analysis of eight different water governance regimes in Europe, Africa and Asia. Part III - Comparative case study analyses of different governance regimes and institutional designs – The quest for general patterns Chapter 6 presents an assessment and standardized comparative analysis of the current water management regimes in four case studies in three European river basins: the Hungarian part of the Upper Tisza, the Ukrainian part of the Upper Tisza (also called Zacarpathian Tisza), Alentejo Region (including the Alqueva Reservoir) in the Lower Guadiana in Portugal, and Rivierenland in the Netherlands. This comparative analysis has an explorative character intended to identify general patterns in adaptive and integrated water management, and to determine its role in coping with the impacts of climate change on floods and droughts. Chapter 7 builds further upon the methodological limitations identified in Chapter 6, in particular the notion that the output of a water management regime is not only defined by its physical interventions in a river basin, but also by means of its management interventions. Chapter 7 therefore defines the output of a management regime as the level of policy learning being identified in the climate change adaptation strategies of the case studies. Moreover, instead of four case studies, this chapter compares eight case 20
studies by means of a formal comparative analysis. The method for conducting a formal comparative analysis is also different, since it uses a formal technique called multi-value QCA (see Chapter 5). Chapter 7 provides an evidence-based contribution to understanding the phenomenon of policy learning and its structural constraints in the field of river basin management, by focusing on the relationship between regime characteristics and different levels of policy learning (as defined in Chapter 5 above). As the final chapter of part III chapter 8 provides a qualitative comparative study on the institional design of processes of climate change adaptation in the Netherlands, Australia and South Africa. It builds upon the work of Elinor Ostrom on institutional design principles for local common pool resources systems. We argue that for dealing with uncertainties like climate change impacts (e.g. floods or droughts) additional or adjusted institutional design principles are necessary that facilitate learning processes. In this chapter we proposed and found some empirical support for a set of nine institutional design principles for climate change adaptation in complex governance systems. Part IV - Functioning and effectiveness of participation and multi-stakeholder dialogues on water and climate – Zooming in on general patterns While research in part III (chapters 6-8) was targeted at finding general patterns in the functioning and performance of complex governance systems, the following part IV (chapters 9-10) will build on the main conclusions of part III, in particular, our finding that stakeholder participation and learning processes play a crucial role in the capacity of these governance systems to adapt to climate change. Chapter 9 is presenting a qualitative comparative study of participation processes using cognitive mapping and group model building (GMB) in a European, a Central Asian, and an African river basin. We use an analytical framework which covers the goals, the role of both scientists and stakeholders, the process initiation and methods framed by very different cultural, socio-economic and biophysical conditions. This chapter shows how GMB processes have been designed and how their results contribute to policy development. In Chapter 10 we studied four very different multi-stakeholder dialogues about water resources management and development issues in four parts of the world: The Netherlands, Australia, the Mekong Region in Southeast Asia, and Portugal. This study shows it is possible to draw comparative insights about the dialogues by using relatively simple questions about principle events. Part V – Synthesis, Outlook and Spin-offs The concluding part of this dissertation provides an overview of important insights and experiences, key methodological and conceptual advancements and main conclusions (Chapter 11), followed by recommendations for future research on climate change adaptation from a water governance perspective (Chapter 12), and finally providing a brief overview of spin-offs of this PhD-research in terms of projects, proposals, presentations and publications (Chapter 13).
21
22
CHAPTER 2
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND
This chapter will reflect on the concepts of integrated water resources management (IWRM) and adaptive water management (AWM) and adaptive water governance, and how they complement each other (section 2.5 to 2.9). Integrated water resources management (IWRM) and adaptive water management (AWM) are concepts that have been developed to cope with the increasing complexity, uncertainty and institutional change related to climate change adaptation in water management (Pahl-Wostl, 2004). However, before reflecting on these concepts I will start with a social and political science perspective on climate change adaptation in water management (section 2.1 and 2.2), followed by an overview of how important concepts in this respect, such as social learning, policy learning and institutional change (Section 2.3 and 2.4), have been taken into account. In formulating this account of a theoretical framework for transdisciplinary research on climate change adaptation and water management I have not been reluctant to draw upon ideas from quite divergent sources. To some this may appear an unacceptable eclecticism, but like Anthony Giddens (1984) I have never been able to see the force of this type of objection. Quoting Anthony Giddens (1984, xxii): “There is an undeniable comfort in working within established traditions of thought – the more so, perhaps, given the very diversity of approaches that currently confronts anyone who is outside any single tradition. The comfort of established views can, however, easily be a cover for intellectual sloth [laziness]. If ideas are important and illuminating, what matters much more than their origin is to be able to sharpen them so as to demonstrate their usefulness, even if within a framework which might be quite different from that which helped to engender them.” After reading this chapter I hope the reader will have the feeling of an eclectic unity, while drawing insights from several disciplines. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to show the reader the role and usefulness of each of these theoretical elements and ideas, and how they complement each other in order to provide a better understanding of the complex reality of water management and water governance in a changing climate. The most important theoretical building blocks for this chapter are derived from:
Social constructivism and constructivist institutionalism (Hay, 2006; Ruggie, 1998; Schmidt, 2008, 2010)
Regime theory (Krasner, 1983; Wendt, 1995; Young, 2006)
Complex adaptive systems (Casti, 1997; Kauffmann, 1995; Pahl-Wostl, 1995), including key concepts such as self-organization, adaptation, heterogeneity across scales and distributed control
Adaptive management (Gunderson and Holling, 2001; Walters, 1986; Pahl-Wostl & Sendzimir, 2005; Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007; Adger et al., 2005)
23
Learning concepts, including social learning (Bandura, 1977; Craps et al., 2003; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007b; Muro and Jeffrey, 2008), action learning (Levy, 2003; Maurer et al., 2006), policy learning (Bennet and Howlett, 1992; Sanderson, 2002) and organizational learning (Argyris and Schön, 1978; Boonstra, 2004).
Adaptive water governance (a.o. Kashyap, 2004; Folke et al., 2005; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007; Huitema et al., 2009;; Kallis et al., 2009; Engle & Lemos, 2009)
Socio-ecological systems (Folke et al. 2005, Walker et al. 2002).
The central tenet being observed in these strands of thoughts is a shared focus on trying to explain how and why societies, institutions, and policies change within the context of complex problems. Within this context, approaches which are sensitive to cognition and institutional change are highlighted, including adaptive management, deliberative democracy, social learning and policy learning. These approaches are considered important for facilitating change and for coping with complexity and uncertainty in water resources management and climate change adaptation.
2.1 A SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVE ON WATER MANAGEMENT AND WATER GOVERNANCE For developing adaptive and integrated approaches to water management there is a need for new analytical tools and theories which are able to deal with social learning, policy learning, institutional change, different realities, and able to explain how identities and interests can change. From the social and political science perspective there are a number of schools, especially the approaches which are sensitive to cognition and institutional change or reform, which provide useful insights and tools for addressing the challenges of current and future water management. At the same time, innovative research efforts on adaptive and integrated approaches to water management are capable of providing new, and often empirical based, insights on “new institutionalism” and other schools in political science with a focus on the role of institutions confronted with complex social problems. In policy research and other fields of political science institutionalist approaches have gained a prominent position in the 1990s (Nullmeyer, 2006). A distinction is being made between rational choice (or economic) institutionalism, historical institutionalism and sociological institutionalism (Hall & Taylor, 1996), and more recently also “discursive” (Schmidt, 2008) or “constructivist” institutionalism (Hay, 2006). Hence, a focus on institutions and institutional reform in water management is not entirely new, although this research mainly comes from the older three “new” institutionalisms. Especially the work of Saleth and Dinar (2004; 2005) on water sector reform and of Elinor Ostrom (1990; 1995; 2005) on irrigation reform need to be highlighted. Elinor Ostrom has demonstrated that self-organizing communities can, indeed, manage common pool resources in a sustainable fashion and does not necessarily need to be regulated via a central governing mechanism. In winning the Nobel Prize 2009 in Economic Sciences, Elinor Ostrom’s research is finally recognized for the significant contribution it has made to our understanding of collective action, resource governance and human behavior in regards to the environment. Most of this research is conducted either in institutional economics based on rational choice models or with collective action approaches analyzing the management of water as a common pool resource.
24
Important theoretical frameworks in the social sciences (i.e. regime theory in political sciences; rational choice theory; new institutional economics; etc.) fall short in their ability to analyze the complex, context dependent dynamics of governance regimes (Harrison, 2006; Ostrom, 2007). Although this research provides useful insights, economic approaches are quite weak in understanding the whole spectrum of water governance. Limitations of “new institutionalism” are located in limited concepts of human agency, the desire to universalise, absence of the concept of social power, and the problem of commensuration. Its appeal for policy makers lies in its suitability for designing standardised policy prescriptions, and its exclusion, or rephrasing, of the issues of power and politics (Mollinga, 2001). Therefore, this section will mainly refer to constructivist approaches of political science, which are more sensitive to cognition and institutional change or reform, and with a broader definition of and a different perspective on institutions. In political science, the heading “cognitive turn” denotes a highly diverse set of developments since the 1990s (Nullmeyer, 2006). What the different attempts under this heading have in common is the turn to ideas, beliefs, narratives, meaning, knowledge – in short, to interpretive schemata, and hence to an aspect that is neglected in approaches fixated on interests (Nullmeyer, 2006). Nearly all major strands of the social sciences have partaken in the cognitive turn, or opened up to it at least temporarily. If the cognitive turn is characterized by an approach of its own, then it would have to be sought in the set of endeavors known under the heading of social constructivism. Social constructivism concerns the issue of human consciousness: the role it plays and the implications for the logic and methods of inquiry of taking it seriously (Ruggie, 1998). Constructivists hold the view that the building blocks of reality are ideational as well as material; that ideational factors have normative as well as instrumental dimensions; that they express not only individual but also collective intentionality; and that the meaning and significance of ideational factors are not independent of time and place (Ruggie, 1998). This stands in sharp contrast to rational choice approaches, which treat actors as rational, self-interested maximisers of utility. As Steve Smith (2004, p.4) explains it: The rational choice theorist is not interested in the internal workings of actors, that is to say, for states, in their internal political debates, or, for individuals, their psychology. Instead, the rational choice theorist models behaviour on the basis of fixed, and pre-given identities, and interests. Such a method is incredibly productive, since it is parsimonious. It is uninterested in history or culture or difference, and instead is only concerned with what kind of game the actors are caught up in.” In policy research and other fields of political science such as European Studies, Institutionalist approaches have gained a prominent position in the 1990s (Nullmeyer, 2006). A distinction is being made between rational choice (or economic) institutionalism, historical institutionalism and sociological institutionalism (Hall & Taylor, 1996). In recent years there have been efforts to establish a fourth type of institutionalism which may be seen as a more radical branch of the sociological and historical institutionalisms. This type is called “discursive” (Schmidt, 2008) or “constructivist” institutionalism (Hay, 2006). The presumptive advantage of both approaches lies in their greater ability to explain processes of institutional change, by explaining the actual preferences, strategies, and normative orientations of actors (Schmidt, 2010). In this section we will use the term “constructivist institutionalism” since the term holds on to its roots in constructivism. Because there is such a vast range of scholarly ideas about ideas and discourse (see Goodin and Tilly, 2006), my purpose is not to review them all here. Rather, it is to show how they may complement or even invigorate new approaches to water management, since social constructivism and constructivist 25
institutionalism have the greatest potential (see Schmidt, 2010) for providing insights into the dynamics of institutional change. By doing so, this section will provide a useful preamble to the subsequent sections on social learning, policy learning and adaptive and integrated water management. This is explicitly being mentioned since constructivist institutionalism shows how discourse serves to redefine interests and reconfigure interest-based coordination; to reshape structures and follow new historical paths; and to reframe rules and create new norms” (Schmidt 2006b: 250). Constructivist institutionalism is an umbrella concept for the vast range of works in political science that take account of the substantive content of ideas and the interactive processes by which ideas are conveyed and exchanged through discourse (Schmidt, 2010). It provides a more dynamic approach to institutional change than the older three “new” institutionalisms (Schmidt, 2010), including rational choice institutionalism, historical institutionalism and sociological institutionalism. Key distinctions between the four “new” institutionalisms are provided in table 2.1. Table 2.1 - Key distinctions between the four “new” institutionalisms (Adjusted version from Schmidt, 2010). Rational choice institutionalism (RI) Behavior of rational actors
Historical institutionalism (HI) Structures and practices
Sociological institutionalism (SI) Norms and culture of social agents
Constructivist institutionalism (CI) Ideas and discourse of sentient agents
Logic of explanation Definition of institutions
Calculation Incentive structures
Appropriateness Cultural norms and frames
Communication Meaning structures and constructs
Approach to change
Static – continuity through fixed preferences, stable institutions Exogenous shock
Path-dependency Macro-historical structures and regularities Static - continuity through path dependency interrupted by critical junctures Exogenous shock
Static – continuity through cultural norms and rules
Dynamic – change (and continuity) through ideas and discursive interaction
Exogenous shock
Endogenous description of incremental change through layering, drift, conversion
Endogenous construction (merge with CI)
Endogenous process through background ideational and foreground discursive abilities Endogenous construction through reframing, recasting collective memories and narratives through epistemic communities, advocacy coalitions, communicative action, deliberative democracy
Object of explanation
Explanation of change
Recent innovations to explain change
Endogenous ascription of interest shifts through RI political coalitions or HI self-reinforcing or self-undermining processes
Constructivist institutionalism shares with the other “new” institutionalisms a core focus on the importance of institutions, but it differs in its definition of institutions, in its objects and logics of explanation, and in the ways in which it deals with change (Schmidt, 2010). The older three “new” institutionalisms are mostly concerned about circumstances that actors “find” in the object world around them and that constrain their behaviour - the idea that actors are the central theoretical and ontological elements in social systems and social structure is an epiphenomenon (Ruggie, 1998). In addition, constructivist institutionalism is interested as much in the “making” of circumstances (Ruggie, 1998): What do people make of their circumstances in the sense of understanding them? And how do they act on whatever understanding they hold? Here, the actors engage in active process of interpretation and construction of reality (Ruggie, 1998).
26
The distinction between finding and making circumstances is especially critical at times of discontinuity, e.g. during climate change and its related uncertainties in water management. Rising temperatures, changing weather conditions, floods in some parts of the world and rapidly spreading drought zones in other regions may permanently alter – and damage – our planet. Since the impacts of climate change are widespread across society the amount of interests and stakeholders involved in climate change adaptation is very large. This is why many voices have advocated the need for a shift towards participatory management and collaborative decision-making; decentralized and more flexible management approaches, and iterative learning cycles incorporated into the overall management approach (Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007). In other words, it requires a constructivist approach in which actors engage in active process of interpretation and construction of reality. Especially relevant for adaptive and integrated water management is the explanatory power of constructivist institutionalism in its focus on ‘deliberative democracy’. Deliberative democracy is seen to occur when parties are reasonable and use evidence-based arguments to reach agreement, where persuasion is the key to creating shared understandings and building consensus, and in which the process itself is based on inclusive, open, trusting, and consensual interaction (Mansbridge, 1983; Bohman, 1996; Dryzek, 2000; Fung and Wright, 2003). Deliberative democracy is considered to be a better form of decision-making because open dialogue may unlock untapped knowledge, generate new skills and knowhow, produce higher-quality reasoning for more legitimate policies, and create new, more collaborative interrelationships among the parties to the deliberation (Elster, 1998). This dissertation will analyze the role of communicative action (Habermas, 1996) by focusing on multiple stakeholder platforms dealing with issues related to water management and climate change adaptation (see chapter 10). Communicative action is at the basis of theories about deliberative democracy (e.g., Dryzek, 2000), about public debate (Art, 2006), as well about coordinative discourses of policy construction and communicative discourses of political communication (Schmidt, 2002, 2006). Deliberation on its own, however, does not necessarily ensure a more ‘democratic’ outcome. Power and position do matter. The question is how to define power and position in such a way as to also take account of the power of ideas and discourse (Schmidt, 2010). Power and interests cannot easily be eliminated from deliberations in either policy or political spheres (Shapiro, 1999), although being aware of these may help governments to set up institutional arrangements and incentives in deliberative situations to minimize the potential effects of domination (Shapiro, 2003: Ch. 2). Awareness of power and interests or even manipulation is no guarantee of success, however, as evidenced by the case of ‘participatorydeliberative public administration’ in South Africa, in which civil society groups brought into the official deliberative process had persuasive ideational power only for cases in which they had other power resources as well, such as the ability to mobilize (Baccaro and Papadakis, 2008). Earlier work related to constructivist institutionalism has been done by constructivist exploration of the impact of causal beliefs through the roles played by transnational networks of knowledge-based experts, 5 also called policy communities (Shannon, 1998) or epistemic communities (Haas, P. 1992). Here, the empirical research seeks to relate the impact of shared beliefs held by such communities on resolving
5
The concept of epistemic communities was introduced by Ruggie 1975; and productively elaborated by Haas 1992a.
27
particular policy problems, such as ozone depletion (see Haas 1992b; and Litfin 1994); as well as the Mediterranean pollution control regime (Haas, P., 1990). Such networks represent informal governance systems across organizational levels with an interest in influencing and implementing policies in a given 6 resource area. This constructivist line of reasoning is also followed in several concepts of learning. Learning, however, means different things in different disciplines, such as psychology (Fischer, 2002) and policy sciences (Bennet and Howlett, 1992), and with different adjectives (van de Kerkhof, 2004), such as “social learning” (Bandura, 1977, Muro and Jeffrey, 2008), “action learning” (Levy, 2003; Maurer et al., 2006), “policy learning” (Bennet and Howlett, 1992) and “organizational learning” (Argyris and Schön, 1978; Boonstra, 2004). In order to capture the essence of social learning in water resources management (see section 2.4) one has to move from individual “multiple cognitions” to interrelated “distributed cognition” and to an understanding of group processes (Röling, 2002). Learning concepts applied to whole social entities can be mainly found in work on organizational learning (Argyris and Schön, 1978, 1996; Boonstra, 2004, 7 Senge, (1990) or Wenger (1998) and policy learning (Bennet and Howlett, 1992). Such concepts emphasize the development of shared meanings, collective mental models and codified practices that characterize the social entity as a whole (Pahl-Wostl, 2002a, 2006). Pahl-Wostl et al. (2007) analyzed the role of social learning in informal actor platforms which may operate as a structural element increasing the adaptive capacity of water governance regimes (see section 2.4). The structural governance context influences the implementation of such actor platforms and vice versa, the emergence of such informal structures influences the overall governance context. In conclusion, the constructivist emphasis on ideas does not mean a neglect of material forces such as technology and geography. Instead it is to suggest that the meanings and consequences of these material forces are not given by nature but rather by human interpretations and understandings. By doing so, constructivism offers a social theory, which is better equipped to deal with the complex problems of the contemporary world, including those encountered in current water management.
2.2
REGIME THEORY
In order to understand the complex reality of current day water resources management it is important to understand the internal workings of a water management regime. The regime’s societal functions (e.g. water supply, flood protection) are continuously reinterpreted and enacted by regime actors. According to Anthony Giddens (1984) and Alexander Wendt (1987) actors have preferences which they cannot realize without collective action; based on these preferences they shape and re-shape social structures, “albeit also through unintended consequences and over a longer period of time” (cf. Grin, 2010); once these social structures are in place, they shape and re-shape the actors themselves and their preferences.
6
7
For critical underpinning and relevant literature see section 2.3 and 2.4 Chapter 4 provides an operational framework for analyzing different levels of policy learning.
28
Closely linked to the discussion above is a concern about the internal workings of a regime, and in this case the internal workings of a water management regime. In contrast to international regimes that have been assumed to unfold around a single institution (e.g. UN Convention on Biological Diversity, Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, The Kyoto Protocol) a water management regime is assumed to unfold around a societal function (e.g. water supply or flood protection). This gives the definition a constructivist character since societal functions are continuously reinterpreted and enacted by regime actors. The approach in this dissertation is constructivist in that it acknowledges the interplay between structures and actors. The analysis of regimes has more and more become an important research area within the discipline of Political Science and International Relations. In this field the most commonly used definition of an (international) regime is that of Krasner (1983): implicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given area of international relations. Principles are beliefs of fact, causation, and rectitude. Norms are standards of behaviour defined in terms of rights and obligations. Rules are specific prescriptions or proscriptions for action. Decision-making procedures are prevailing practices for making and implementing collective choice. Regime theory strives to explain the formation, properties and consequences of these international regimes (Mayer et al., 1993). International regimes are social institutions created to respond to the demand for governance relating to specific issues arising in a social setting that is anarchical in the sense that it lacks a centralized public authority or a government in the ordinary meaning of the term (Young, 2006: 3). Treating regimes as social institutions makes it natural to link regime theory to the “new institutionalism” spreading throughout the social sciences in the 1990’s (March and Olsen, 1989; North, 1990; Scott, 1995; Young, 1994). Amongst others, this line of thought emphasizes the importance of differentiating between regimes construed as sets of rights, rules, and decision-making procedures that give rise to social practices on the one hand and organizations treated as material entities that have offices, personnel, budgets, and so forth on the other. Put simply, regimes provide the rules of the game; organizations typically emerge as actors pursuing their objectives under the terms of these rules (Young, 2006, p.4). The new institutionalism’s perspective on regimes, however, has problems in the practice of regime analysis, and Constructivism complements missing elements of neo-liberal institutionalism’s perspective on regime theory (Kratochwil, Friedrich and John Gerard Ruggie (1986: 763). The constructivist approach to the institutionalization of cooperation focuses on how the expectations that are produced by the behaviour affect interests and identities. Alexander Wendt argues that (1995, 87): “The process by which egoists learn to cooperate is at the same time a process of reconstructing their interests in terms of shared commitments to social norms.” Wendt continuous: “Over time, this will tend to transform a positive interdependence of outcomes into a positive interdependence of utilities or collective interest organized around the norm in question” (Wendt, 1995: 87). This process of institutionalization is one in which actors internalize new understandings of self and other and, furthermore, move towards increasingly shared commitments to the norms of the regime. In other words, there is a strong behavioural component in the regime theory. Whereas an international treaty is a legal document stipulating rights and obligations, a regime is a social institution in which the behaviour of
29
its actors constitutes the regime (List and Rittberger, 1992). Thus a regime is often based on an informal understanding and usually does not take the form of a written document.
2.3
MOVING TOWARDS ITERATIVE LEARNING CYCLES
In the previous sections the importance of social learning has been highlighted as an added value of Constructivist Institutionalism in contrast to other types of neo-institutionalisms. Social Constructivism is providing analytical tools to deal with social learning, different realities, and is able to explain how identities and interests can change. In other words, tools which are of crucial importance in coping with complexity and uncertainty in water resources management. These tools also provide an added value in trying to understand the internal workings of a water management regime. The use of iterative learning cycles is an important distinction between traditional approaches to water management and adaptive and integrative approaches. Whereas traditional approaches are using sequential phase models (figure 2.3a), the new approaches are breaking away from this phase model by using iterative learning cycles. The sequential phase model is based on the idea of a political system, developed by David Easton (1953), which suggests that a system is any entity which has parts that connect with each other (figure 2.3a). Structurally, political systems may be defined in terms of input, conversion, output, and feedback operating in at least three different environments: a) domestic environment; b) international environment; and c) natural environment.
Figure 2.3a - Concept of the Political System (from David Easton, 1953)
David Easton published his theoretic works on political models in three volumes - "The Political System" (1964), "A Framework for Political Analysis" (1965) and most importantly "A Systems Analysis of Political Life" (1979). At the centre of his work was the question as to how political systems manage to remain firm in a world full of stability and change. To answer this question, Easton believes that it is necessary to scrutinize the way in which the political system interacts with the environment within society and outside of society. According to this concept, demands, expectations and support approach the political system, before being processed within the political system during the so-called conversion process and made into binding decisions for all members of society in the form of laws and provisions. These laws and provisions, in turn, create reactions within society and feedback and, again, to demands and/or support. From this perspective the political system theory is well suited for explaining centralized and hierarchical modes of 30
government, since it is the political system, by definition, were authoritative value assignments are made (= decisions that are binding for all), and as such it is having a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Although Easton’s concept of the political system has limitations regarding its external validity for analyzing complex, adaptive systems, Easton’s work is considered important, because it was a conceptual breakthrough in applying systems thinking to political science. As opposed to Easton’s sequential phase model, or maybe as a further development of systems thinking, adaptive management includes at its core an iterative learning cycle (figure 2.3b). In literature this cycle is known as the action learning or action research cycle. The concept of action learning is rooted in constructivist strands of thought (Haas, P, 1992; Ruggie, 1998; Hwang, 2000; Levy, 2003; Maurer et al., 2006, on Constructivism in action). It was mentioned, in earlier paragraphs, that constructivists posit that an external world does not exist for everyone to see, but is in the eye of the observer, in other words, our knowledge of the world arises through our constructions of social reality (Berger & Luckman, 1967). The focus in social constructivism is on the generation of meaning as shaped by social processes. In this view, knowledge is constructed as an individual experiences and interacts in the physical and social worlds. This perspective sees learning as a social process (Hwang, 2000). According to Vaill (1996) action in complex systems has to balance, reconcile, and integrate change on the outside with change (learning) on the inside (see figure 2.3b) In general, action learning offers a widely accepted framework for understanding and engaging systematically in practical knowledge construction (Levy, 2003). The concept of action learning is being applied in organizational learning (Argyris and Schön, 1978, 1996), business management (Sterman, 2000), financial sector, health sector (Levy, 2003, on community empowerment; Hanks, 2006, on community partnership), educational sector (Hwang, 2000, Maurer et al., 2006), and more recently also in the agricultural sector (ICRA, 2007) and water management (Pahl-Wostl, 2003, 2007). There is a body of literature on Action Learning which lends some support for the notion of a generalized analysis cycle. Several informative contemporary reviews (Marsic et al., 1992; Macnamara et al., 1990) all point to the highly influential and formative work carried out by Revans (1980). The key to Revans’ ideas is expressed well by Borje Saxberg (1992), as follows: ‘With action learning, there is agreement that individuals must be given the opportunity to become involved and that they are capable of creatively contributing to problem solving and action. I have personally been dubious about forcing individuals in organizations to see all answers in terms of exploration of personalities with the intent of moving towards some predetermined organisational ideal. The emergence of trust in action learning with the discussion of the problem(s) will lead to increased understanding and sensitivity for the social factors in a situation, besides addressing competently the problem or issue at hand.’ Action learning is ultimately concerned with creating processes that facilitate learning (Morgan and Ramirez, 1984)
31
Figure 2.3b - Action learning process as consisting of two integrated cycles: an "action cycle" and a "learning cycle" (From: ICRA, 2007)
The action learning process as described in figure 2.3b consists of two integrated cycles: an "action cycle" and a "learning cycle". The action cycle consists of three stages (from: ICRA, 2007): -
“Forming partnerships with other organizations or individuals who share with you a common "development challenge" - a complex development problem or opportunity;
-
Achieving a common understanding of this challenge - synthesizing the perspectives of different stakeholders, understanding the wider context of the challenge, defining what changes you want to see in the "system";
-
Screening and evaluating the different options or activities carried out for technology improvement, improved services to rural people, policy and institutional change that further enable innovation and the improvement of rural livelihoods.”
The learning cycle also consists of three activities (from: ICRA, 2007): -
“Planning - where you and your partners collectively decide what to do and how to go about it;
-
Doing - where you collectively or individually implement the agreed activities; and
-
Reflecting - where you collectively evaluate what you have done, how effective this has been, and how to further improve your effectiveness in the future
We see these as cycles of iterative stages, rather than as a linear process, because all development practitioners are already involved in these processes, and because the different stages are not clearly separated but iterative. At any stage, it may be necessary to form new partnerships; as options are evaluated, the understanding of the partners increases, and so on. Similarly, planning, doing and reflecting are always done simultaneously, even if one of these activities might be more prominent at any given time” (ICRA, 2007).
32
2.4
SOCIAL LEARNING IN WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Social learning means learning together to manage together (Craps, 2003; Pahl-Wostl, 2007b). An important hypothesis in literature is that stakeholder collaboration, starting at the earliest possible moment, enhances social learning (e.g. Boonstra, 2004; Hisschemöller, 2005; Muro and Jeffrey, 2008; Stringer et al., 2006). It helps to build trust, develop a common view on the issues at stake, resolve conflicts and arrive at joint solutions that are technically sound and actually implemented in practice. It helps all stakeholders to achieve better results that they could achieve otherwise (Craps, 2003). Social learning is required whenever (From: Craps, 2003): 1) different stakeholders depend on each other to reach their goals; 2) there is no agreement on the problems at stake; 3) the issues are important enough for the stakeholders to invest the necessary time (and therefore money). Social learning is not something new. It happens whenever people with different goals and resources successfully manage a problem in which each has an interest (Craps, 2003). Often, however, special efforts are needed to promote it. The original concept of social learning referred to the learning of individuals in a social environment by observation of others and imitation and modelling (Bandura, 1977). Learning by individuals can be broadly defined as a process in which individuals relate to the social and physical environment, e.g. through thinking, feeling, perceiving and behaving (Kolb, 1984), and adapt to it, e.g., by developing new perspectives, skills and/or actions (Craps, 2003). By focusing on cognitive processes of individuals this concept does not take into account the development of learning processes at the group level, the development of shared meanings and values which provide also an orientation to learning which is the base for the development of joint action. As pointed out by Röling (2002) one has to move from individual “multiple cognitions” to interrelated “distributed cognition” and to an understanding of group processes in order to capture the essence of social learning for resources management. Learning concepts applied to whole social entities can be mainly found in work on organizational learning such as Argyris and Schön (1978, 1996); Boonstra (2004), Senge, (1990) or Wenger (1998). Such concepts emphasize the development of shared meanings, collective mental models and codified practices that characterize the social entity as a whole (Pahl-Wostl, 2002b, 2006b). In this dissertation stakeholder includes all persons, groups and organizations with an interest or “stake” in an issue, either because they will be affected or because they may have some influence on its outcome. This includes individual citizens and companies, economic and public interest groups, government bodies and experts. Public includes all non-governmental stakeholders. Different levels of public participation The public includes all individuals, organizations and associations that do not perform official government functions. Three different levels of participation can be distinguished (From: Craps, 2003): “Information: The lowest level of participation is providing access to information and disseminating information actively. Sufficient information supply is a prerequisite for meaningful involvement of the public and moreover it is often legally required.
33
Consultation: Consultation means that the public can react to government proposals. In many planning procedures it is legally required to publish drafts and allow the public some time to make comments in writing. Other forms of consultation include oral consultation and surveys. Active involvement: Active involvement implies a more involved role for the public. The public may:
have discussions with the authorities help to determine the policy agenda help to develop solutions be involved in taking decisions participate in implementation”
Pahl-Wostl et al (2007) analysed the role of social learning in informal actor platforms which may operate as a structural element increasing the adaptive capacity of water governance regimes. The structural governance context influences the implementation of such actor platforms and vice versa, the emergence of such informal structures influences the overall governance context. 8
The European project HarmoniCOP (Harmonizing COllaborative Planning) developed a new conceptual approach to capture the essential processes of multi-level social learning in river basin management. The approach adopted by the HarmoniCOP project is characterized by a broad understanding of social learning that is rooted in the more interpretative strands of the social sciences. The key message “learning together to manage together” sheds also a new light on the understanding of the management process (Pahl-Wostl et al, 2008). Figure 2.4 represents the framework for social learning developed to account for learning processes in water resources management (Bouwen and Taillieu, 2004, Craps, 2003; Pahl-Wostl, 2002b, 2006b). The framework includes context, process and outcomes and a feedback loop to account for change in a cyclic and iterative fashion.
8
More information on the HarmoniCOP project is available on the webpage - http://www.harmonicop.uos.de/. The main objectives of HarmoniCOP have been to increase the understanding of participatory river basin management in Europe, to generate practically useful information about and improve the scientific base of social learning and the role of ICT tools in river basin management and support the implementation of the European Water Framework Directive).
34
Figure 2.4 - Conceptual framework for social learning in resources management. In the centre are multi-party processes that are influenced by the context in which they are embedded and that produce outcomes that may lead to changes in the context and thus to a cyclic and iterative process of change (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2006b).
Requirements for social learning include institutional settings that guarantee a certain degree of stability and certainty without being rigid and inflexible (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007b). Analyses based on conceptual considerations and results from the HarmoniCOP case studies (From: Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007b) suggest that “the development of such institutional settings involves continued processes of social learning where stakeholders at different scales are connected in flexible networks and where sufficient social capital and trust is developed to collaborate in a wide range of formal and informal relationships from formal legal structures and contracts to informal, voluntary agreements.”
2.5
POLICY LEARNING
Policy learning approaches generally hold that states can learn from their experiences and that they can modify their present actions on the basis of their interpretation of how previous actions have fared in the past (Bennet and Howlett, 1992). However, many of the fundamental elements of such learning remain conceptually unclear and, as a result, the entire phenomenon of experience-induced policy change remains difficult to operationalize (Grin & Loeber, 2007; Leicester 2007; Kemp & Weehuizen 2005; Sanderson, 2002; Chapman 2002; Bennet and Howlett, 1992). In Chapter 4 more literature will be provided on policy learning, followed by developing an operational framework for assessing different levels of policy learning.
35
2.6
THE IWRM CONCEPT AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN PRACTICE
Before moving towards a conceptual framework for adaptive and integrated water resources management (AIWM) it is of importance to start with the difficulties associated with the implementation of the IWRM concept in practice. For the past two decades, new, more integrated approaches to water management have been developed and are being implemented to address perceived shortcomings in earlier approaches. Wide consensus now exists around the concept of ‘Integrated Water Resource Management’ (IWRM) and it features as the guiding philosophy of the international donor community’s approach to water (European Commission, 2007; World Bank, 2004). IWRM is being defined as ‘a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximise the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems’ (GWP-TAC, 2000). 9
The rise of the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in the 1990s, with its emphasis on river basins as planning and management units, brings back memories of earlier conceptualizations and can even be seen as “old water in a new bottle” (Biswas, 2004). For example, earlier calls for Integrated River Basin Management were made by the UN in 1970 and 1976, at a time when system analysis was becoming fashionable (Molle, 2006: 19). As IWRM strategies developed over the past 20 years the management of water resources solely to maximise consumptive use has given way to a realisation that management for environmental values, such as biodiversity, and social and cultural values is necessary (Cortner and Moote, 1994). Appropriate responses to water stress thereby become focused on augmenting water resources by improving the efficiency of supply, reducing leakage and recycling water, whilst trying to reduce demand through price changes, licensing structures, technology improvement and education campaigns in all user sectors. IWRM approaches have also emphasised the need for ‘joined up planning’ across natural resource and economic development sectors. The need to adapt IWRM theory to local contexts makes generic description of strategies and techniques difficult. However, a set of IWRM principles which are (at least in part) characteristic of many national, regional and basin scale strategies have been identified (from: IWA/UNEP, 2002);
“IWRM should be applied at catchment level. It is critical to integrate water and environmental management. A systems approach should be followed. Full participation by all stakeholders, including workers and the community. Attention to the social dimensions.
9
OAS and UNEP (1978) and Barrow (1998) attempted to distinguish between several conceptions of River Basin Development Planning and Management, and Downs et al. (1991) looked at examples of integrated management. They showed that very different types of experiences are described with a similar vocabulary. This diversity shows not only that varied local contexts, types of use and management lead to different problems but also that hardly anywhere have truly integrated approaches been implemented.
36
Capacity building. Availability of information and the capacity to use it to anticipate developments. Full-cost pricing complemented by targeted subsidies. Central government support through the creation and maintenance of an enabling environment. Adoption of the best existing technologies and practices. Reliable and sustained financing.”
With growing evidence that effective implementation of IWRM at the basin level (or otherwise) demands sophisticated institutional arrangements, democratic structures and patterns of governance that are polycentric rather than unicentric, it is apparent that IWRM is still often conceived as something that can be introduced by fiat, goodwill and expert knowledge (Molle et al. 2006). The proposal of the Plan of Implementation of the Recommendations of The Johannesburg Summit to “develop integrated water resources management and water efficiency plans by 2005” (UN 2001) also reveals the adherence to old modes of bureaucratic command and control (Molle, 2006: 20). Current approaches to realizing integrated water management are built on the heritage of a predict-and-control paradigm that has been dominating the water management community for decades. However, over the past decade, it has become increasingly evident that water problems of a country can no longer be resolved by the water professionals, and/or the water ministries, alone (Biswas, 2004: 2). The water problems are becoming increasingly more and more interconnected with other development-related issues, and also with social, economic, legal and political factors, at local and national levels, and sometimes at regional and even international levels. Already, many of the water problems have become far too complex, interconnected and large to be handled by one single institution, irrespective of the authority and resources given to it, technical expertise and management capacity available, and all the good intentions (Biswas, 2001). Based on his analysis of existing literature on the IWRM-concept, Biswas (2004: 9-11) has identified 35 sets of issues which different authors consider what are the issues that should be integrated under the aegis of integrated water resources management. The word integration thus often has very different connotations and interpretations depending on the author concerned. “Integrated” clearly indicates an aspiration to functionally engage a range of perspectives by formally considering a wide range of potential trade-offs at different scales in space and time. Such an approach attempts to overcome the shortcomings of technical, end-of-pipe solutions dealing with individual problems in isolation and thus often neglecting unexpected consequences (Pahl-Wostl, 2007a). However, implementation of an integrated resources management approach that fully accounts for the complexity and interdependencies of humantechnology-environment systems has yet to be realized. IWRM failing to deliver Recently various authors argued that the IWRM approach, as it is defined by the GWP, cannot be implemented in practice generally due to operational questions and related problems of establishing measurable criteria (e.g. Jeffrey and Gearey, 2005; Lankford and Hepworth, 2006; Biswas, 2004). The most common criticism is that the gap between theory and practice remains extensive. As a review article stated …‘There is still a long way to go to achieve a common understanding of IWRM and to develop and refine approaches for its successful implementation’ (Jonker, 2002. p719). Perhaps the most insightful observation regarding this gap comes from a book review which, although published over a decade ago, still rings true today. The review draws attention to a shared ‘basic faith in the concept and 37
aims of integrated management’ but also points out that ‘despite some achievements and extraordinary capital investment, national governments have by and large failed to sustain truly integrative programmes.’ (Westcoat, 1992). Biswas (2004) and a couple of respondents to his article pointed out several barriers to implementation. Integration of sectors and issues would require more centralized policy development and implementation and thus larger, slower, and more bureaucratic authorities to handle all policy aspects. Furthermore, objectives like stakeholder participation and decentralization would be unlikely to promote integration. Biswas (2004) even stated that the GWP approach is un-implementable, internally inconsistent, based only on trendy words, and does not provide any guidance for water professionals as to how the concept could be used to make planning and decision-making more efficient. In the absence of both an operational definition and measurable criteria, at present is is not possible to identify what constitutes an integrated water resources management. While Biswas is correct in criticising the vagueness of the IRWM concept, it should be noted that he regards only the operational (what will be) side of the concept. Other commentaries have pointed out that IWRM is immature as a management tool. For example, ‘IWRM has neither been unambiguously defined, nor has the question of how it is to be implemented been fully addressed. What has to be integrated and how is it best done? Can the broad principles of IWRM be operationalised in practice – and, if so, how?’ (GWP/TAC, 2000). Contemporary concern over this lack of success in application is such that the United Nations Environment Programme was recently prompted to classify the conversion of the concepts of integrated water resources management into practice as “Unfinished Business” (IWA/UNEP, 2002). Nevertheless, and irrespective of the specific criticisms levelled at the application of IWRM, we would suggest that the concept possesses two major weaknesses from which the bulk of its perceived failings arise; the nature of the science which has informed its development, and its curiously ambiguous character in terms of current intellectual paradigms. In summary the following main limitations of IWRM have been highlighted in these discussions (From: Pahl-Wostl & Senzimir, 2005):
“vagueness of the concept; integration of many topics and management of a system for a specific purpose cannot be realized simultaneously; the claims for change in management practice made by the promoters of IWRM seem to be based on normative claims rather than a sound scientific base that would provide evidence of these new management approaches; examples for the successful implementation of IWRM are lacking; emphasis on process without clearly defined and measurable targets for the goals to be achieved.”
It is worth mentioning that the EU Water Framework Directive differs from the IWRM-concept on several points. The EU WFD does not explicitly promote IWRM. There have been papers that argue strongly that it is even very defficient in this respect (e.g. Rahaman, et al., 2004).
38
2.7
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
More recently, adaptive management has been introduced as a concept that may complement missing elements of current approaches to IWRM (Pahl-Wostl & Sendzimir, 2005). The idea of adaptive management has been discussed in ecosystem management for quite some time (Holling, 1978; Walters, 1986; Pahl-Wostl, 1995: Lee, 1999). It builds on a recognition that ecosystems are complex systems, which are ‘‘adaptive’’, or ‘‘self organising’’ and that management systems must be able to readjust to change or surprise in the system (Gunderson and Holling, 2001). The insights on complex adaptive systems are mainly derived from Complexity Theory (Geldof, 1995) and from Social-Ecological Systems Theory (Folke et al. 2005; Walker et al., 2002). The capacity to adapt to and shape change is an important component of resilience in a social-ecological system (Berkes et al., 2003). Because the self-organizing properties of complex ecosystems and associated management systems seem to cause uncertainty to grow over time, understanding should be continuously updated and adjusted, and each management action viewed as an opportunity to further learn how to adapt to changing circumstances (Carpenter et al., 2001). This is the foundation for active adaptive management wherein policies become hypotheses, and management actions become the experiments to test those hypotheses (Gunderson et al., 1995). It is not a “trial and error” process, but rather emphasizes learning while doing (U.S. National Research Council, 2004). Adaptive management (Holling, 1978) is often put forward as a more realistic and promising approach to deal with ecosystem complexity (Gunderson, 1999) than management for optimal use and control of resources (Holling et al., 1996; Ludwig et al., 2001). The increasing awareness of the complexity of environmental problems and of human-technology-environment systems has encouraged the development of new management approaches based on the insight that the systems to be managed are, in broad terms, complex, non-predictable and characterized by unexpected responses to intervention (Pahl-Wostl, 2002; Light and Blann, 2000; Committee on Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research, 1999). Folke et al. (2005) identified the following four critical factors that interact across temporal and spatial scales and that seem to be required for dealing with social-ecological dynamics during periods of rapid change and reorganization:
Learning to live with change and uncertainty Combining different types of knowledge for learning Creating opportunity for self-organization toward social-ecological resilience Nurturing sources of resilience for renewal and reorganization
Such complex adaptive systems are characterized as hierarchies of components interacting within and across scales with emergent properties that cannot be predicted by knowing the components alone (Lansing, 2003). Control is distributed rather than central (Allen & McGlade, 1985; Pahl-Wostl, 1995). Rather than trying to change the structure of complex, adaptive systems to make them controllable by external intervention, innovative management approaches aim at making use of the selforganizing properties of the systems to be managed. Steering and coordination of complex adaptive systems requires reflexive governance, which is being defined by Voß and Kemp (2005: 8) as: “the organisation (modulation) of recursive feedback relations between distributed steering activities”. This strategic process requires five key elements (Voß and Kemp, 2006: 17-20): 1) transdisciplinary knowledge production; 2) experiments and adaptive strategies and institutions; 3) anticipation of long-term effects of measures; 4) interactive participatory goal formulation; and 5) interactive strategy development.
39
This implies a paradigm shift in water management from a prediction and control to a management as learning approach. Such change aims at increasing the adaptive capacity of river basins at different scales. Some structural requirements for a system to be adaptive have been summarized in the following table. Two different regimes are contrasted as the extreme, opposing ends of six axes.
Table 2.7 - Different regimes and their characteristics (From: Pahl-Wostl et al., 2005)
The characteristics of integrated adaptive regimes are to be regarded as working hypotheses (see also Chapter 3), since the change towards more adaptive regimes is yet slow and empirical data and practical experience thus limited. According to Pahl-Wostl & Sendzimir (2005) “one possible reason for this lack of innovation is the strong interdependence of the factors stabilizing current management regimes. One cannot, for example, move easily from top-down to participatory management practices without changing the whole approach to information and risk management. Hence, research is urgently needed to better understand the interdependence of key elements of water management regimes and the dynamics of transition processes in order to be able to compare and evaluate alternative management regimes and to implement and support transition processes if required.”
2.8
COMBINING ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND IWRM
What would it mean if the concepts of adaptive management and social learning would by applied to IWRM? Folke et al (2005) already pointed out that social learning is needed to build up experience for coping with uncertainty and change. They emphasize that “knowledge generation in itself is not sufficient for building adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems to meet the challenge of navigating nature’s dynamics and conclude that “learning how to sustain social-ecological systems in a world of continuous change needs an institutional and social context within which to develop and act”. Knowledge and the ability to act upon new insights are continuously enacted in social processes. The social network of stakeholders is an invaluable asset for dealing with change.
40
One can summarize that the need to involve a wide range of stakeholders and foster social learning can be explained by a couple of insights that are not entirely new but have only recently been taken seriously into account in management practice (From: Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007): -
“The increasing interdependence between government bodies and other stakeholders (e.g. due to decreasing government budgets, the need for collective decisions, distinctive competences and complementary contributions) reduces the efficacy of a traditional command and control management style and requires a shift towards a more interactive and participatory style.
-
The increasing complexity of natural resources management (e.g. shift towards integrated approaches in management objectives, integrated solutions instead of technical fixes, increased awareness for the complex nature of socio-ecological systems) requires an increased capacity for learning and innovation and the need to involve a wider group of stakeholders (Pahl-Wostl, in press).
-
Increasing uncertainties (e.g. due to climate change and dynamic socio-economic developments) require a more adaptive and flexible management approach to engage in a faster learning cycle which allows rapid assessments of and implementation of the consequences of new insights. This requires new skills and capabilities, informal and flexible management structures and the inclusion of expert knowledge as well as local lay knowledge.”
As explained in the previous section, adaptive management has mainly been developed in the context of ecosystem management and its successful transfer to IWRM remains yet to be shown. Given the previous considerations the following statements can be made regarding the reasons why adaptive management is needed for realizing IWRM (From: Pahl-Wostl & Sendzimir, 2005): -
“Ambiguity in defining operational targets for the different management goals to be achieved and conflicts of interests require participatory goal setting (not by experts only).
-
Outcome of management measures is uncertain due to the complexity of the system to be managed and uncertainties in environmental and socio-economic developments influencing the performance of implemented management strategies.
-
New knowledge about system behaviour may suggest the change in management strategies.
-
Changes in environmental and/or in socio-economic conditions may demand change in management strategies.”
Figure 2.8 summarizes the steps in the IWRM cycle as advocated by the GWP and how uncertainties could be integrated to move towards an adaptive management approach. It should be emphasized that adaptive management and IWRM are complementary and not competing concepts. Research in the NeWater project is guided by the hypothesis that IWRM cannot be realized unless current water management regimes undergo a transition towards more adaptive water management that explicitly recognizes that the systems to be managed are complex and evolving and where learning is based on a scientifically grounded process to acquiring and processing new information.
41
What are now the requirements for adaptive management in river basins (From: Pahl-Wostl & Sendzimir, 2005): “(1) New information must be available and/or consciously collected (e.g. indicators of performance of management regimes, indicators for change that may lead to desirable or undesirable effects) (2) The actors in the management system must be able to process this information and draw meaningful conclusions from it. This can be best achieved if monitoring and information collection is based on formulating hypotheses about the system to be managed. (3) Management must have the ability to implement change based on processing new information and implement a transparent process who decides based on which evidence why to change a management practice. Any management regime has to be judged based on the above listed requirements.”
Figure 2.8 - Different steps in the iterative IWRM cycle (from Jonch-Clausen, 2004, Figure 3) with considerations of what would be needed to take into account uncertainties and make water management more adaptive (From: PahlWostl and Sendzimir, 2005)
42
2.9
ADAPTIVE WATER GOVERNANCE
One important element of adaptive water management is the governance structure. Water Governance is distinct from water management, which refers to operational, on-the-ground activities to align water resources, supply, consumption and recycling. Water governance refers to the range of political, social, economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources, and the delivery of water services, at different levels of society (Global Water Partnership, 2002). The water governance system includes formal water rights or informal participatory approaches in more flexible management schemes. Governance also covers economic aspects (e.g. water pricing and the valuation of different water uses) and organizational forms of water management (e.g. different forms of publicprivate partnerships). Malfunctions in governance and the policy environment exacerbate the impact of variability and uncertainty related to climate change, population growth, urbanisation, and economic development. The system of water governance has a major impact on water use. Water quality, the distribution of water to various users, and the efficiency with which water-related services are delivered all depend on water governance. Another critical issue here is that the failure of governance sometimes leads to water conflicts that suddenly change the water use and availability situation in a river basin or larger region. Moreover, the failure of governance systems has been identified as being one of the most important reasons for the increased vulnerability of populations to water related disasters (Rogers and Hall, 2003). A growing number of studies are showing the benefits of collaborative, adaptive water governance and what it takes to achieve them (a.o. Kashyap, 2004; Folke et al., 2005; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007; Huitema et al., 2009;; Kallis et al., 2009; Engle & Lemos, 2009). Some conditions for success in adaptive water governance are being identified (by Kallis et al, 2009), such as informality, self-organizing interaction and sustained boundary work. However, the same studies mentioned above also help us to see some limitations. For example, less clear is what sort of institutional designs can create and maintain the conditions mentioned by Kallis et al. (2009), while assuring that agreements will be implemented in a publicly and politically accountable way. One important concept from the governance-sphere is the concept of polycentric governance, which also is mentioned in connection with further related concepts such as “multi-level governance” and “multiple spheres of authority” (Ostrom, 2005: 255; Marks and Hooghe, 2004; Rosenau, 2004). According to Ostrom (2001: 2) “polycentric systems are the organization of small-, medium-, and large-scale democratic units that each may exercise considerable independence to make and enforce rules within a circumscribed scope of authority for a specific geographical area”. Adaptive management suggests that there should not be one single centre of power, but a system dividing power to multiple centers, or a polycentric governance system. Adaptive governance of ecosystems generally involves polycentric institutional arrangements, which are nested quasi-autonomous decision-making units operating at multiple scales (Ostrom, E. 1996; McGinnis, 2000). They involve local, as well as higher, organizational levels and aim at finding a balance between decentralized and centralized control (Imperial, 1999). As argued by Gunderson & Holling (1995), during times of rapid change informal social networks can provide arenas for novelty and innovation and enhance flexibility, all of which tend to be stifled in bureaucracies. However, these network structures do not replace the accountability of existing hierarchical bureaucracies but operate within and complement 43
them (Kettl, 2000). As observed by Steel & Weber (2001), too much decentralization may counteract its purpose and miss the opportunity of collective action that involves several organizational levels. Therefore, actual river basin operations will be a balance between centralized and decentralized river basin management. In some river basins there will be a clear case for a well-financed regulatory authority deploying centrally planned infrastructure, water measurement and legal safeguards against powerful sectoral interests (Lankford et al., 2006: 10). By offering flexibility and emphasizing learning processes, adaptive water governance promises to better cope with changing risks of floods and droughts, and other forms of changes to water systems, associated with climate change. Taking into consideration (normal) climate variability is already important to successful management of water in many parts of the world driving processes of local, national and regional adaptation. Climate change adds to the existing complexities of achieving just socio-economic development, involving multiple uses of water among growing numbers of users in ways that are both fair and sustainable (Lebel 2007, 2008). Pro-active integration of climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and sustainable development strategies is needed. However, we know, as yet, little on the ‘politics’ of how strategies actually work: trust building, conflict resolution and the way in which different interests are weighed against each other. Successful governance in water resources management depends on adaptive institutions (Pahl-Wostl 2002, 396) that are able to cope with complexity and uncertainty and to face new challenges such as climate change. In order to achieve institutional adaptation, certain elements need to be focused on, including adequate access and distribution of information, collaboration in terms of public participation and sectoral integration, flexibility and openness for experimentation (Huitema et al., 2009). Participatory methods such as group model building and role playing games can also support social learning in actor groups. Such learning environments have proven to be crucial for the adaptive governance of socioecological systems (Folke et al., 2005; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007).
2.10
MULTI-LEVEL WATER GOVERNANCE
Most specialists agree that states face many institutional inadequacies when dealing with shared resources and that new governance mechanisms are needed to improve water management. The concept of multi-level water governance is an effort to collectively solve public problems by involving a series of relevant actors from the local to the global level, such as institutions, states, civil society, and business. Within the context of climate change adaptation there are crucial multilevel governance challenges, whatever countries’ institutional settings and context. The term multi-level governance is used to characterize the relationship between public actors situated at different administrative and territorial levels. This creates layers of actors who interact with each other: 1) across different levels of government (vertical coordination); 2) among relevant actors at the same level (horizontal coordination at central or at subnational level); or 3) in a networked manner. This relationship exists regardless of constitutional system (federal or unitary) and impacts the implementation of public policy responsibilities. Debates over ‘scaling’ powers within multi-level governance have become widely discussed in several related academic sub-disciplines, including economic federalism (e.g. Oates, 1998), political geography (e.g. Delaney and Leitner, 1997), EU studies (Hooghe and Marks, 2003) and international public policy 44
(Young, 2002). For example, conflicts over the appropriate ‘scale’ (Young, 2002) or institutional level of policy-making characterize multi-level water governance. According to the Water Framework Directive the natural area for water management is the river basin area. This is not only a challenge for transboundary river basins, but also for water management on a local scale, since the majority of administrative boundaries do not match with the hydrological boundaries determined by the Directive. This problem of institutional fit (Young 1999: 45) requires horizontal and vertical cooperation between all administrations and institutions involved, and it causes many debates over ‘scaling’ powers within multilevel water governance in the EU. Originally, water pollution problems were governed at the national or even local scales. Over time, policy tasks have been incrementally re-scaled to the EU triggering disputes over its legitimacy, costs and effectiveness. These arguments culminated in attempts by Member States to ‘repatriate’ or re-scale water governance tasks during the 1990s (Jordan, 2000). Although repatriation per se did not occur (idem), initiatives such as the Water Framework Directive (WFD) are leading to increased downward scaling of tasks so that they are shared more functionally between institutional levels. Water resources management is determined by complex interrelationships of a number of factors at different scales. Often scale is understood in the sense of what is called “levels” here, e.g. the local, national or global “scale/level” as subdivisions when referring to the spatial scale (Constanza et al., 2001; Adger 2001). According to Berkes (2003 et al., 317) it is useful to start with the assumption that a given resource management system is multi-scale and that it should be managed at different scales simultaneously. Social-ecological systems can for example be examined from From: Berkes et al., 2003): -
“a temporal point of view (the temporal scale, e.g. distinguishing between time intervals such as days, years, decades and centuries),
-
a point of view of location (the spatial scale, e.g. distinguishing between the global, national, subnational and local levels),
-
an institutional point of view (the institutional scale, e.g. distinguishing between constitutional rules, collective choice rules and operational rules)10 and
-
a jurisdictional point of view (jurisdictional scale, e.g. national, provincial and local administrations) (Cash et al., 2006)”
Under certain circumstances experience gained and solutions found at one level of a certain scale might be appropriate to solve a problem at a higher or lower level of that same scale. Thus scaling-up (or rather “levelling-up”) or -down is an issue of concern when searching for solutions to multi-scale and multi-level systems such as linked social-ecological systems. On the other hand one has to be cautious with the transferability of institutional arrangements since an arrangement that proved fitting one setting of a
10
Accordingly an institution or institutional arrangement can be examined with regard to its temporal, spatial or functional scales (IHDP 1998).
45
problem might not necessarily be suitable for solving a related problem situated on another level or scale (Young 2002, 10). This research is mainly concerned with the spatial scales, since the natural area for water management is the river basin area (according to the Water Framework Directive (EC, 2007)), but also with jurisdictional scales, since current responsibilities in water management, in most EU Member States, are (still) structured along administrative boundaries (e.g. national, provincial and local administrations). Moreover, this research will focus on a subbasin level, but being embedded in a wider context of the transboundary basin level and the operational or local level. The subbasin level is conceived as the level where all elements of adaptive and integrated water management are at play. At the same time this level is influencing, or is being influenced by, higher and lower levels. This central position also allows for assessing the outcomes of a water management regime at the operational level, since the management on the subbasin level (e.g. water board or regional water authority) is influenced by international or national regulation, while implementing at the operational and/or local level.
2.11
A SYMBIOGENESIS OF DIFFERENT CONCEPTS
For adaptive approaches to water management and water governance a marriage of different concepts is unavoidable and important. As stated earlier, the change towards more adaptive regimes is yet slow and empirical data and practical experience thus limited (Pahl-Wostl, 2007c). Hence, before a marriage of concepts can take place it might be better to speak of a symbiogenesis of different concepts. A symbiogenesis in this case means that conceptual evolution is not primarily based on competition between different concepts but on a learning process where the combination of insights from the various traditions sheds new light on the development of adaptive approaches. During this learning process concepts are improved step by step, with contributions not only from producers of new knowledge but also from users. My personally favored metaphor for conceptual evolution is the example of human towers (so-called ‘castells’ in Spanish), where higher levels can be reached by building upon the shoulders of others (see figure 2.11). The ‘Castellers’ would still be standing on the ground without mutually beneficial collaboration and trust in each other’s skills and strengths. This is quite similar to joint knowledge production and/or conceptual evolution in water management where via beneficial collaboration, both scientists and relevant stakeholders (e.g. farmers, professionals in water management, representatives of the administration, and NGO representatives) come closer to ‘the nature of the problems’ (Hart 1986, Hodgson 1992, von Korff 2005, Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007b). Like the ‘Castells’, the result may be larger as the sum of its parts. At the same time, the metaphor of the human tower also shows that such a tower can be deconstructed when becoming instable, or even worse, it may collapse when there is a weak link in it. The same applies to a conceptual tower. Both require learning, training, and capacity building in order to improve and become stronger. This dissertation intends to provide a contribution to such a symbiogenesis or ‘conceptual’ tower, by providing a theoretical framework for transdisciplinary research on climate change adaptation and water management. This framework includes different (but sometimes overlapping) concepts which are beneficial for developing adaptive approaches to water management and water governance. The purpose of this symbiogenesis is not to establish an all-encompassing scientific theory of the world. Instead, transdisciplinary problem solving aims at pragmatic and problem-specific local integration of knowledge (Hinkel, 2008). 46
The need for a symbiogenesis is obvious, since we still have incomplete knowledge of how, when and which different concepts might be beneficial to each other. After all, processes of climate change adaptation in the water sector (and other sectors), including its inherent complexities and uncertainties, have only been initiated recently in most parts of the world (if at all), and there hasn’t been enough time to test their appropriateness and effectiveness. Nevertheless, the combination of different concepts is necessary, since adaptive approaches to water management require different capabilities than traditional forms of water management, particularly when it comes to creating forms of collaboration between water managers and stakeholders, the relation between science and policy, the importance of participatory learning processes, dealing with uncertainty and complexity, and assessing a wide variety of possible measures and future scenarios. It requires many instances of social learning to develop, implement and sustain innovative management approaches (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007b).
Figure 2.11 - Castellers of the Castellers de Sants 'colle' build a human tower during the 22nd Tarragona Castells Competition on October 5, 2008 in Tarragona, Spain (Photo by Jasper Juinen/Getty Images Europe)
As stated earlier in this chapter, integrated water resources management (IWRM) and adaptive water management (AWM) are complementary concepts that have been developed to cope with the increasing complexity, uncertainty and institutional change related to climate change adaptation in water management (Pahl-Wostl, 2004). I have also argued that drawing from different disciplines might be useful to further develop a theoretical framework for transdisciplinary research on climate change adaptation and water management. The central tenet being observed in the concepts highlighted in this chapter is a shared focus on trying to explain how and why societies, institutions, and policies change within the context of complex problems. Within this context, approaches which are sensitive to cognition 47
and institutional change are highlighted, including adaptive management, deliberative democracy, social learning and policy learning. These approaches are considered important for facilitating change and for coping with complexity and uncertainty in water resources management and climate change adaptation. In contrast to conventional conflict-oriented theories this dissertation concludes, based on comparative case study analyses, that learning is an important source (if not the key source) of policy change (see chapter 7). Within conflict-oriented policy theory, the nature of the mechanism or agent of policy change and the role of knowledge in that process remains unclear (Castles, 1990). It is important to take into account that there may be a range of ontological and epistemological problems when combining different concepts. This is tantamount to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. The difficulties lay in the fact that languages, theories and methods of different disciplines do not fit together like the pieces of a puzzle (Kitcher, 1999). Each discipline abstracts differently from the “real world”, thereby selecting some aspects and neglecting all others (Jaeger, 2003). For more information on challenges and opportunities for transdisciplinary knowledge integration I refer to Hinkel (2008). Within the context of developing adaptive approaches to water management and water governance, one cannot expect that design and implementation of adaptation strategies will be based on a full understanding of potentially beneficial (or conflicting) theories and concepts, and how they may complement or cross-pollinate each other. Most of them are context-specific and the explanatory power of combining them will unfold during a transdisciplinary research process. Hence, the whole conceptual evolution as regards adaptive approaches to water management and governance in a changing climate has to be regarded as a continuous learning process; an iterative cycle of reflexive monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment. Here, the actors engage in active process of interpretation and construction of reality (Ruggie, 1998). Incorporation of iterative learning cycles into the overall management approach (see also Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007) is therefore necessary for a shift towards a better understanding and facilitation of adaptive approaches to water management and water governance.
48
PART II – METHODOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS
49
50
CHAPTER 3
A FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING THE LEVEL OF ADAPTIVE AND INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT
One of the key objectives of this PhD research is to see whether there is a link between regime characteristics and 1) the responsiveness to floods and droughts (as an output of the regime at play) and 2) the levels of policy learning. For this purpose I have developed an analytical framework for assessing the characteristics of a water management regime. In this chapter I will provide the conceptual background for this framework. In order to develop indicators for assessing the regime characteristics a normative framework has been developed of how an adaptive and integrated management regime looks like. For this normative framework I have used the working hypotheses on the characteristics of AIWM being presented in table 2.7 in the previous chapter. These working hypotheses have been further developed into a methodology for evaluating the level of Adaptive and Integrated Water Management, which resulted in an analytical framework for assessing regime characteristics, consisting of nine different dimensions of variables: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Agency Awareness Raising & Education Type of governance Cooperation structures Policy development & implementation Information management & sharing Finances and cost recovery Risk management Effectiveness of (international) regulation
As a useful starting point for operationalization we considered the River Basin Assessment framework developed by Raadgever et al. (2008). Raadgever et al. developed a framework including four regime elements (4-7). Based on relevant literature (see endnotes in table 3.1) we have added the dimensions agency, governance, awareness raising and education, risk management, and effectiveness of (international) regulation to the four regime elements that Raadgever et al. (idem) used to describe a management regime in their article. Furthermore, we have developed variables and indicators for the added dimensions and adjusted some of the variables and indicators in the framework of Raadgever et al. (2008). By doing so, we have further developed the methodology for assessing and comparing governance regimes. The operationalisation resulted in 33 variables; comprising 62 indicators (see table 3.1, including related literature). In addition to the framework of Raadgever et al. (2008) we have provided a more detailed explanation and related literature for each indicator in order to prevent ambiguity in the interpretation of indicators. The current large number of variables is inherent to the explorative character of this research, but also to the nature of complex (governance) systems. Hence, one cannot simply omit variables without eroding the comprehensiveness of our analysis of complex governance systems. In other words, with our current number of variables we consciously intended to reduce the risk of glossing over potential key variables,
51
especially since the empirical base for AIWM is yet rather weak, and we cannot a priori justify which variables should be in or out. Table 3.1 – Overview of variables and indicators for AIWM (Huntjens et al., 2010)
Dimension
Variable
Indicator
Literature
A) Agency
1. Type of leadership (in dealing with climate-related extreme events)
Mobilization of allies Taking advantage of exogenous factors (e.g. taking action when political climate is right) Barriers are dealt with effectively, causing no serious delays or problems Leadership is proactive; anticipates on problems Leadership is able to formulate and articulate internally consistent policy preferences
Folke et al, 2005; Leach & Pelkey, 2001; Giddens, 1986; Wendt, 1995; Grin et al, 2004; Voß and Kemp,2005; Bos & Grin, 2008
2. Level of cohesion
Jupille & Caporaso, 1998
3. Level of authority
B) Awareness raising & education
C) Governance
D) Cooperation (Formal and informal actor networks)
Leadership has authority to act externally, in particular the legal competence in given subject matter 4. Public awareness Public awareness programs for water Savenije & Van der Zaag, 2000; programs on water management are regularly implemented in Rondinelli, 1983 problems collaboration with civil society organizations and the media 5. Water education in IWRM is regularly introduced in school Savenije & Van der Zaag, 2000; school programs programs; and with potential to be an integral Rondinelli, 1983 part of school curricula 6. Water education IWRM is regularly introduced in Savenije & Van der Zaag, 2000; educational/capacity building programs for Rondinelli, 1983 water professionals 7. Type of governance Consensual (bottom-up) governance vs topPahl-Wostl et al, 2007c; Steel & Weber, down governance (governance by government) 2001; Lankford et al, 2006; Ostrom, 1996, 2001, 2005; Hooghe & Marks, 2003; Kettl, 2000; Imperial, 1999; Young, 2002; Olsson et al, 2006 8. Level of, or Legal provisions concerning access to Scharpf, 1978; Kickert et al, 1997; Folke provisions for, information, participation in decision-making et al, 2005; Brannstromm et al, 2004; stakeholder (e.g. consultation requirements before decision- Sumberg and Okali, 2006; Huisman, de participation making) and access to courts Jong et al. 2000; Marty 2001; Raadgever et al, 2008 Co-operation structures include nonFolke et al, 2005; Brannstromm et al, governmental stakeholders (e.g. environmental 2004; Sumberg and Okali, 2006; NGO’s, user groups, citizen groups or private Huisman, de Jong et al, 2000; Marty sector) 2001 Non-governmental stakeholders actually Folke et al, 2005; Brannstromm et al, contribute to agenda setting, analysing 2004; Sumberg and Okali, 2006; problems, developing solutions and taking Huisman, de Jong et al, 2000; Marty decisions (“coproduction”) 2001
9. cross-sectoral cooperation
Non-governmental stakeholders undertake parts Scharpf, 1978; Kickert et al, 1997; Folke of river basin management themselves, e.g. et al., 2005; Raadgever et al, 2008 though water users’ associations Sectoral governments actively involve other Dube and Swatuk, 2002; Scharpf, 1978; government sectors (e.g. agriculture, nature, Kickert et al, 1997; Folke et al, 2005; environment, tourism, forestry, health, Brannstromm et al, 2004; Sumberg and navigation, spatial planning) Okali, 2006; Huisman, de Jong et al, 2000; Marty 2001; Raadgever et al, 2008 Co-operation structures include government bodies from different sectors; many contacts generally
52
10. cooperation between administration levels
Conflicts are dealt with constructively, resulting in inclusive agreements to which the parties are committed11 Lower level governments are involved in decision-making by higher level governments Co-operation structures include government bodies from different hierarchical levels; many contacts generally Conflicts are dealt with constructively, resulting in inclusive agreements to which the parties are committed (see footnote 19)
11. cooperation across Downstream governments are involved in administrative decision-making by upstream governments boundaries International/ transboundary co-operation structures exist (e.g. river basin commissions); many contacts generally Conflicts are dealt with constructively, resulting in inclusive agreements to which the parties are committed (see footnote 19) E) Policy 12. time horizon Solutions for short term problems do not cause development and more problems in the (far) future (20 years or implementation more)
13. flexible measures, keeping options open
14. experimentation 15. consideration of possible measures
16. actual implementation of policies
17. Monitoring & Evaluation
F) Information 18. joint/participative management and information sharing production
19. interdisciplinarity
McCay, 2002; Stern, 1991; Ostrom, V., 1993; Wolf, 1997 Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007c; Steel & Weber, 2001 Lankford et al, 2006; Ostrom, 1996, 2001, 2005; Marks & Hooghe, 2004; Kettl, 2000; Imperial, 1999; Young, 2002 McCay, 2002; Stern, 1991; Ostrom, V., 1993; Wolf, 1997 Kerr, 2007; Lebel et al, 2008; Raadgever et al 2008
McCay, 2002; Stern, 1991; Ostrom, V., 1993; Wolf, 1997 Voß and Kemp, 2006; Dube and Swatuk, 2002; Kickert et al, 1997
Already now preparations are taken for the (far) Raadgever et al, 2008; Pahl-Wostl et al, future (20 years or more) 2007c; Voß and Kemp, 2006 Measures taken now or proposed for the near Voß and Kemp, 2006; Dube and Swatuk, future do not limit the range of possible 2002; Kickert et al, 1997 measures that can be taken in the far future and are preferably reversible. Small-scale policy experiments take place/ are Voß and Kemp, 2006; Sanderson, 2002 financially supported. Several alternatives and scenario’s are discussed Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007c; Raadgever et al 2008 Alternatives include small and large-scale and Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007c; Raadgever et al structural and nonstructural measures 2008 Plans and policies are actually implemented Raadgever et al 2008 Water policies are not dogmatically stuck to Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007c; Raadgever et al when there are good reasons not to implement 2008 policies, such as new and unforeseen circumstances (e.g. climate change) and new insights Formation and documentation of high-level Raadgever et al 2008; Voß and Kemp, steering committee meetings for project 2006 preparation and implementation Adoption of an M&E plan during project Ostrom, 1990; Sanderson, 2002; Young, preparation that includes establishment of 2002; Willis K.J. & Whittaker, 2002 process indicators, stress reduction indicators, and environmental status indicators. Different government bodies are involved in Dube and Swatuk, 2002 setting the TORs and supervising the search, or at least consulted (interviews, surveys etc.) Idem for non-governmental stakeholders Brannstromm et al., 2004; Sumberg and Okali, 2006; Huisman, de Jong et al. 2000; Marty 2001 Different disciplines are involved in defining and Folke et al, 2005; Voß and Kemp, 2006 executing the research: in addition to technical
11
Conflicts are at least reduced, or resolved, in order to prevent stalling of the decision-making process. Inclusive: no stalling because of this specific conflict, exclusive other conflicts
53
and engineering sciences also for instance ecology and the social sciences 20. Elicitation of Researchers allow their research to be Voß and Kemp, 2005; Stirling, 2006; Grin mental models/ critical challenged by stakeholders and present their et al., 2004 selfreflection about own assumption in as far as they are aware of Assumptions them Research results are not presented in an Voß and Kemp, 2005; Stirling, 2006; Grin authoritative way, but in a facilitative way, to et al., 2004 stimulate reflection by the stakeholders about what is possible and what it is they want12 21. explicit Uncertainties are not glossed over but Dietz, et al, 2003; Brugnach et al., 2008 consideration of communicated (in final reports, orally) uncertainty Researchers are willing to talk with stakeholders Dietz, et al, 2003; Brugnach et al., 2008 about uncertainties 22. broad Governments exchange information and data Voß and Kemp, 2006 communication with other governments Governments actively disseminate information Raadgever et al 2008 and data to the public: on the Internet, but also by producing leaflets, though the media, etc. 23. utilization of New information is used in public debates (and Raadgever et al 2008 information is not distorted) New information influences policy 24. decision support River basin information systems are up to Young, 2002; Willis K.J. & Whittaker, system standards 2002 G) Finances and 25. resource Sufficient (public and private) resources are Leach & Pelkey, 2001 cost recovery availability available 26. cost recovery Costs are recovered from the ‘users’ by public Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007c and private financial instruments (charges, prices, insurance etc.) 27. allocation of Authorities can take loans and depreciate their Dietz, et al, 2003, Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007c resources assets, to facilitate efficient use of resources and replacement of assets Financial resources diversified using a broad set Dietz, et al, 2003, Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007c of private and public financial instruments 28. private sector Wide-spread private sector participation in river Dietz, et al, 2003; Raadgever et al, 2008 participation basin management H) Risk 29. Risk perception Both formal expert judgment and risk Brugnach et al., 2008; Pahl-Wostl et al, management perceptions by the stakeholders 2007c 30. Decision-making on Non-governmental stakeholders are involved in Scharpf, 1978; Kickert et al, 1997; Folke acceptable risks decisions on what are acceptable risks et al, 2005; Raadgever et al, 2008 31. Insurance against Insurance against housing and property damage Botzen & Van de Bergh, 2006; Bakker et risk is available al., 2008; Bouwer and Vellinga, 2005; Mills, 2007 Harvest insurance mechanisms are available Botzen & Van de Bergh, 2006; Bakker et al., 2008; Bouwer and Vellinga, 2005; Mills, 2007 I) Effectiveness of 32. Level of To which extent are coercive sanctions used as Lamy 2005; Dietz, et al, 2003; Chayes et international compliance legitimate means of generating compliance in al. 1993 ; Weinstein 2000; Ostrom et al., regulation hierarchical context? 1994; Tietenberg et al., 2001; Nash, To which extent are coercive sanctions used as 2002; Garner and Stern, 1996; Weiss and legitimate means of generating compliance in Jacobson, 1998 institutionalized horizontal setting, in other words, does compliance with regulations vary with the availability of information, institutionalized horizontal coercion, shaming,
12
When research results are presented it is possible (in general) to have an open discussion and provide critical feedback on the conceptual framework, research methods, results and conclusions. Compared to presentation in a hierarchical (top-down) and one-directional way.
54
33. Adoption of international regulation
3.1
and adjudication, among other things? Are there any softer paths to compliance in place (e.g. capacity building, legitimacy building, and the voluntary internalization of law)? Country adoption of specific water, environment, or sector related legal reforms, policies, institutions, standards, and programs necessary to address the transboundary priority issues, including stakeholder participation programs County ratification of the regional or global conventions and protocols High-level political commitment to follow up joint action as signified by, among other things, ministerial level declarations or adoption of a joint legal/institutional framework Country commitments to report progress in achieving stress reduction indicators as well as environmental status data to the regional or joint institution Incorporation of country assistance strategies (CAS) in the World Bank or regional development bank or UNDP country-level strategic results framework (SRF)
Lamy 2005; Dietz, et al, 2003; Chayes et al. 1993 ; Weinstein 2000; Ostrom et al., 1994; Tietenberg et al., 2001; Nash, 2002; Garner and Stern, 1996; Weiss and Jacobson, 1998
AGENCY
The reason for having the meta-variable agency is mainly based on the work of Anthony Giddens (1984), who argues that social structure is both the medium and outcome of action. According to Anthony Giddens (1984) and Alexander Wendt (1987) actors have preferences which they cannot realize without collective action; based on these preferences they shape and re-shape social structures, “albeit also through unintended consequences and over a longer period of time” (cf. Grin, 2010); once these social structures are in place, they shape and re-shape the actors themselves and their preferences. In other words, the constitution of agents and structures are not two independently sets of phenomena, meaning that structures should not be treated as external to individuals. This is what Voß and Kemp (2005) call second-order reflexivity, which is about self-critical and self-conscious reflection on processes of modernity, particularly instrumental rationality. It evokes a sense of agency, intention and change. Here actors reflect on and confront not only the self-induced problems of modernity, but also the approaches, structures and systems that reproduce them (Stirling, 2006; Grin et al., 2004). In other words, agents have the ability to look at actions to judge their effectiveness in achieving their objectives. This means that if agents can reproduce structure through action, they can also transform it. Agency is therefore considered important during processes of climate change adaptation and thus included as a variable in the analytical framework. Table 3.1 shows an overview of variables and indicators in this dimension.
55
Table 3.1 - Variables and indicators for ‘Agency’
Dimension
Variable
Indicator
Literature
A) Agency
1. Type of leadership (in dealing with climate-related extreme events)
Mobilization of allies Taking advantage of exogenous factors (e.g. taking action when political climate is right) Barriers are dealt with effectively, causing no serious delays or problems Leadership is proactive; anticipates on problems Leadership is able to formulate and articulate internally consistent policy preferences
Folke et al, 2005; Leach & Pelkey, 2001; Giddens, 1986; Wendt, 1995; Grin et al, 2004; Voß and Kemp,2005; Bos & Grin, 2008
2. Level of cohesion 3. Level of authority
Jupille & Caporaso, 1998
Leadership has authority to act externally, in particular the legal competence in given subject matter
Type of leadership Although the type of leadership is only one element of agency it is definitely an important one, since collaboration in governance networks requires leadership (Folke et al., 2005). In a review of the empirical literature on watershed partnership by Leach & Pelkey (2001), effective leadership and management was the second most frequent factor for successful partnership after adequate funding. Leadership is essential in shaping change and reorganization by providing innovation in order to achieve the flexibility needed to deal with ecosystem dynamics. In Deliverable I will focus on leadership in the direction of adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. It is argued by Folke et al. (2005: 58) that leaders can provide key functions for adaptive governance, such as building trust, making sense, managing conflict, linking actors, initiating partnership among actor groups, compiling and generating knowledge, and mobilizing broad support for change. These individuals often have the ability to manage existing knowledge within social networks for ecosystem management and further develop those networks. Lack of leaders can lead to inertia in social-ecological systems (idem, p.111). Based on the above mentioned key functions for leadership in adaptive governance four different indicators have been selected for the analytical framework: 1) leadership mobilizes allies; 2) leadership takes advantage of exogenous factors (e.g. when political climate is right or when useful information becomes available); 3) barriers are dealt with effectively – causing no serious delays or problems; 4) leadership is proactive – anticipates on problems. Cohesion & authority The last variables in the category of agency are the level of cohesion and the level of of authority of the responsible management authorities. These variables are derived from the work of Jupille, J. & Caporaso, J. (1998). The level of cohesion is defined as ‘the degree to which an entity is able to formulate and articulate internally consistent policy prefereces’ (p. 218-9), secondly, the level of authority is defined as leadership which is ‘able to act externally, in particular the legal competence in given subject matter’ (p. 216-7).
56
For all the variables the respondents were asked to give an answer from their professional point of view, or the insight view of their organization. Especially for the variable agency it was therefore necessary to specify which organization was being scored. Respondents were asked to score the organization were he/she is employed. In case this organization has no mandates in river basin management they were free to choose an organization which does have a mandate. Hence, the variable agency refers to management/leadership by institutions, administration, and/or executives which have a mandate in river basin management.
3.2
AWARENESS RAISING & EDUCATION
Having adequate technical capacities and negotiating skills is an important prerequisite for cooperation. Capacity building helps to develop these capacities (Savenije & Van der Zaag, 2000). Furthermore, teaching and training are important aspects of a decentralisation process (Rondinelli, 1983). Based on this literature the analytical framework comprises three different variables for this category (see table 3.2 below). Dimension
Variable
B) Awareness raising & education
5. Public awareness programs on water problems
3.3
Indicator
Literature
Public awareness programs for water Savenije & Van der Zaag, 2000; management are regularly implemented in Rondinelli, 1983 collaboration with civil society organizations and the media 6. Water education in IWRM is regularly introduced in school Savenije & Van der Zaag, 2000; school programs programs; and with potential to be an integral Rondinelli, 1983 part of school curricula 7. Water education IWRM is regularly introduced in Savenije & Van der Zaag, 2000; educational/capacity building programs for Rondinelli, 1983 water professionals
GOVERNANCE STYLE
Empirical evidence strongly suggests that polycentric governance regimes are more flexible and adaptive than mono-centric regimes (e.g. Ostrom, 2001, 2005; Folke et al., 2005). These finding support the more general understanding that complex adaptive systems are both more effective and efficient than centralized systems in the allocation of scarce resources in dynamic and uncertain environments (PahlWostl, 1995, 2002). Polycentric governance systems tend to outperform monocentric systems governing similar ecological, urban and social systems. Adaptive governance relies strongly on participatory processes and active stakeholder involvement to build commitment and social capital needed for social learning and to include a wide range of different perspectives. For the analytical framework the variable of top-down governance (governance by government) versus consensual (bottom-up) governance has been selected as the single indicator for governance. It should be noted this variable is considered as an overarching indicator, since it is assumed to be related to the structure of formal and informal networks (see § 3.4 Cooperation Structures), and to other regime dimensions, e.g. policy development & implementation (3.5), information management & sharing (3.6), risk management (3.8), and effectiveness of regulation (3.9).
57
3.4
COOPERATION STRUCTURES
Based on literature discussed below we have developed a list of 4 variables, including a total of 13 indicators for the regime dimension ‘Cooperation Structures’ (see table 3.4). Table 3.4 - Variables and indicators for ‘Cooperation Structures’
Dimension
Variable
Indicator
Cooperation structures
8. Level of, or provisions for, stakeholder participation
Legal provisions concerning access to information, participation in decision-making (e.g. consultation requirements before decisionmaking) and access to courts
Literature
Scharpf, 1978; Kickert et al, 1997; Folke et al, 2005; Brannstromm et al, 2004; Sumberg and Okali, 2006; Huisman, de Jong et al. 2000; Marty 2001; Raadgever et al, 2008 Co-operation structures include nonFolke et al, 2005; Brannstromm et al, governmental stakeholders (e.g. environmental 2004; Sumberg and Okali, 2006; NGO’s, user groups, citizen groups or private Huisman, de Jong et al, 2000; Marty sector) 2001 Non-governmental stakeholders actually Folke et al, 2005; Brannstromm et al, contribute to agenda setting, analysing 2004; Sumberg and Okali, 2006; problems, developing solutions and taking Huisman, de Jong et al, 2000; Marty decisions (“coproduction”) 2001 Non-governmental stakeholders undertake parts Scharpf, 1978; Kickert et al, 1997; Folke of river basin management themselves, e.g. et al., 2005; Raadgever et al, 2008 though water users’ associations 9. cross-sectoral Sectoral governments actively involve other Dube and Swatuk, 2002; Scharpf, 1978; cooperation government sectors (e.g. agriculture, nature, Kickert et al, 1997; Folke et al, 2005; environment, tourism, forestry, health, Brannstromm et al, 2004; Sumberg and navigation, spatial planning) Okali, 2006; Huisman, de Jong et al, 2000; Marty 2001; Raadgever et al, 2008 Co-operation structures include government bodies from different sectors; many contacts generally Conflicts are dealt with constructively, resulting McCay, 2002; Stern, 1991; Ostrom, V., in inclusive agreements to which the parties are 1993; Wolf, 1997 committed13 10. cooperation Lower level governments are involved in Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007c; Steel & Weber, between decision-making by higher level governments 2001 Lankford et al, 2006; Ostrom, 1996, administration levels Co-operation structures include government 2001, 2005; Marks & Hooghe, 2004; bodies from different hierarchical levels; many Kettl, 2000; Imperial, 1999; Young, 2002 contacts generally Conflicts are dealt with constructively, resulting McCay, 2002; Stern, 1991; Ostrom, V., in inclusive agreements to which the parties are 1993; Wolf, 1997 committed (see footnote 13) 11. cooperation across Downstream governments are involved in Kerr, 2007; Lebel et al, 2008; Raadgever administrative decision-making by upstream governments et al 2008 boundaries International/ transboundary co-operation structures exist (e.g. river basin commissions); many contacts generally Conflicts are dealt with constructively, resulting McCay, 2002; Stern, 1991; Ostrom, V., in inclusive agreements to which the parties are 1993; Wolf, 1997 committed (see footnote 13)
13
Conflicts are at least reduced, or resolved, in order to prevent stalling of the decision-making process. Inclusive: no stalling because of this specific conflict, exclusive other conflicts
58
Stakeholder participation Social learning refers to the capacity of all stakeholders to deal with different interests and points of view, and to collectively manage the resources in a sustainable way (Folke et al., 2005). Important are issues such as the development of a shared problem definition, and shared understanding of the physical system at stake, perception issues and mental frames, negotiation processes and strategies, and the quality of communication. Crucial for the understanding of social learning processes is the understanding of multi-party processes in which representatives from stakeholder groups interact on a regular base. Folke et al. (2005) point out that social learning is needed to build up experience for coping with uncertainty and change. They emphasize that “knowledge generation in itself is not sufficient for building adaptive capacity in socialecological systems to meet the challenge of navigating nature’s dynamics” and conclude that “learning how to sustain social-ecological systems in a world of continuous change needs an institutional and social context within which to develop and act”. From this perspective, it is important to involve (nongovernmental) stakeholders and the general public in decision-making, although this may take a lot of time initially, it will support cooperation and enlarge the acceptation of proposed measures (Huisman, de Jong et al. 2000; Marty 2001). This implies that stakeholders should be able to make modifications to plans (Sumberg and Okali, 2006). Moreover, local governments can gain access to valuable local knowledge through involvement of NGOs (Brannstromm et al., 2004). The level of stakeholder participation is a cross-cutting variable in the analytical framework, since it is being used as a variable in different regime dimensions, e.g. cooperation, policy development & implementation, information management & sharing, and in risk management. Horizontal cooperation For climate change adaptation a sectoral approach to water management is generally insufficient to deal with the complex interrelationships and diverse stakeholder priorities. Hence, cross-sectoral analysis is required to identify emergent problems and integrate policy implementation and adaptive responses. However, in most countries the institutional landscape is highly fragmented and sectoral policies and planning processes are developed in isolation. This prevents the implementation if integrative solutions (Pahl-Wostl, 2008). Innovative flood management requires, for example, a strong coordination with spatial planning and agricultural policy. Biswas (2004) argued that such integration would lead to rigid mega-bureaucracies. This must not be the case- other forms of governance are more promising in achieving the desired combination of sectoral integration and flexibility and learning in water management. Vertical cooperation The need for better understanding of cross-scale interactions in natural resource governance is put forward by many scholars (e.g. Berkes, 2008; Cash et al., 2006; Ostrom, 2005). Such cross-scale interactions also affect how social networks influence governance processes. As stated by Frank et al. (2007), local resource extractors are increasingly linked to global networks of trade (large scale), but the structure of the local social networks (small scale) largely determines who gets to participate and under 59
what conditions. According to Bodin & Crona (2009) a social network perspective holds great potential in enabling analyses of various cross-scale interactions. It could therefore be of great value in researching natural resource governance processes ranging from the local to the global thus enabling understanding of various factors driving global environmental change. Transboundary cooperation Transboundary cooperation is a key requirement for climate change adaptation in water management. The need to share water resources across national boundaries can be a source for conflict, or even wars, but can also be a trigger for cooperation (e.g. Yoffe and Wolf, 1999; Gleditsch et al., 2006). To cope with the impacts of climate change cooperation is mandatory (Pahl-Wostl, 2008). Increased uncertainty in water supply, an increase in extreme events, a reduction of natural buffering capacity due to melting of glaciers require that adaptation strategies are developed at the transboundary level. Conflict resolution Sharp differences in power and in values across interested parties make conflict inherent in environmental choices. Indeed, conflict resolution may be as important a motivation for designing resource institutions as is concern with the resources themselves (McCay, 2002). People bring varying perspectives, interests, and fundamental philosophies to problems of environmental governance, and their conflicts, if they do not escalate to the point of dysfunction, can spark learning and change (Stern, 1991; Ostrom, V., 1993). Nevertheless, water dispute amelioration is as important as and less costly than conflict resolution. Early cooperation requires that incentives are made sufficiently clear to all stakeholders (Wolf, 1998). Dealing constructively with conflicts, resulting in inclusive agreements to which the parties are committed, is used as a variable in this Deliverable, and applies to cross-sectoral cooperation, cooperation between administrative levels (vertical cooperation), and cooperation across administrative boundaries (horizontal cooperation) (See variables 9, 10 and 11 in table 3.4).
3.5
POLICY DEVELOPMENT & IMPLEMENTATION
Policy formation and policy implementation are inevitably the result of interactions among a plurality of separate actors with separate interests, goals, and strategies (Scharpf, 1978: 346). Scharpf argued that policy analysis should be geared towards the interorganizational network within which policy is made. According to Kickert et al. (1997), the actors involved in policy development and implementation are not only drawn from governmental units; they may also include other whose efforts are required for the success of policy-making and its implementation. Indeed, the bottom-up perspective employed here draws attention to the point that for most endeavours in policy development and implementation the target groups (as they are often called) of official efforts must be counted among the necessary participants and incorporated in network analysis, rather than ignored or treated as passive objects populating the implementation landscape. In empirical terms, the degree of problem-solving success often varies greatly depending on the extent and type of involvement of targeted individuals and organizations in ‘co-producing’ the cooperative effort (see Hupe, 1993). The concept of policy development is defined by Kickert et al. (1997) as ‘problem-solving efforts stimulated by government and ordered into programmes.’ As already argued in the previous paragraph 60
policy formation and policy implementation are inevitably the result of interactions among a plurality of separate actors with separate interests, goals, and strategies. Steering and coordination of complex adaptive systems requires reflexive governance, which is being defined by Voß and Kemp (2005: 8) as: “the organisation (modulation) of recursive feedback relations between distributed steering activities”. Important elements of this strategic process are amongst others (Voß and Kemp, 2006: 17-20): 1) experiments and adaptive strategies and institutions (variable 14); 2) anticipation of long-term effects of measures (Indicator 12-1 and variable 13).
Table 3.5 - Variables and indicators for ‘Policy development and implementation’
Dimension
Variable
Policy 12. time horizon development and implementation
Indicator
Literature
Solutions for short term problems do not cause Voß and Kemp, 2006; Dube and Swatuk, more problems in the (far) future (20 years or 2002; Kickert et al, 1997 more)
Already now preparations are taken for the (far) Raadgever et al, 2008; Pahl-Wostl et al, future (20 years or more) 2007c; Voß and Kemp, 2006 13. flexible measures, Measures taken now or proposed for the near Voß and Kemp, 2006; Dube and Swatuk, keeping options open future do not limit the range of possible 2002; Kickert et al, 1997 measures that can be taken in the far future and are preferably reversible. 14. experimentation Small-scale policy experiments take place/ are Voß and Kemp, 2006; Sanderson, 2002 financially supported. 15. consideration of Several alternatives and scenario’s are discussed Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007c; Raadgever et al possible measures 2008 Alternatives include small and large-scale and Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007c; Raadgever et al structural and nonstructural measures 2008 16. actual Plans and policies are actually implemented Raadgever et al 2008 implementation of Water policies are not dogmatically stuck to Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007c; Raadgever et al policies when there are good reasons not to implement 2008 policies, such as new and unforeseen circumstances (e.g. climate change) and new insights Formation and documentation of high-level Raadgever et al 2008; Voß and Kemp, steering committee meetings for project 2006 preparation and implementation 17. Monitoring & Adoption of an M&E plan during project Ostrom, 1990; Sanderson, 2002; Young, Evaluation preparation that includes establishment of 2002; Willis K.J. & Whittaker, 2002 process indicators, stress reduction indicators, and environmental status indicators.
Policy development and implementation also includes variables such as the consideration of possible measures (see variable 15). This variable in turn is operationalized into multiple indicators, such as to what extent non-structural measures have been taken into account, next to structural measures (such as dike reinforcements). Examples of non-structural measures are flood insurance, flood zoning restrictions, land-use management, economic incentives, public information and community education. As regards flood policy, non-structural measures are intended to modify flood susceptibility and flood impact. Water management cannot be seen as a separate issue from land management (Dube and Swatuk, 2002). Therefore, integration of water management with agriculture and spatial planning is important since measures taken now or proposed for the near future should not limit the range of possible measures that can be taken in the far future and are preferably reversible > See variable 12 and 13.
61
Monitoring and evaluation The process of monitoring and evaluation serves to adjust the course of action. For example, during the process of climate change adaptation, actions and objectives can then be adjusted based on reliable feedback from the monitoring programmes and improved understanding (Nyberg, 1999). According to Ostrom (1990), monitors, who actively audit common pool resource conditions and appropriate behavior, are accountable to the appropriators or are the appropriators. In other words, monitoring is an important tool for increasing accountability. At the same time, evaluation is put forward as a key institutional practice in interactive governance to provide the basis for reflexive social learning (Sanderson, 2002: 9). Choosing proper descriptive indicators is essential to the process of evaluation and monitoring. While adopting an M&E plan during project preparation it is therefore important to include, for example, process indicators, stress reduction indicators, and environmental status indicators.
3.6
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Information management is of key importance for adaptive and integrated water management. Access to information must be open and uncertainties must be clearly communicated (Pahl-Wostl, 2008). A comprehensive understanding of water problems and their solutions is only achieved by open shared information sources that fills gaps and facilitate integration (Pahl-Wostl, 2008). Table 3.6 - Variables and indicators for ‘Information Management’
Dimension
Variable
Indicator
Literature
Information 18. joint/participative Different government bodies are involved in Dube and Swatuk, 2002 management and information setting the TORs and supervising the search, or sharing production at least consulted (interviews, surveys etc.) Idem for non-governmental stakeholders Brannstromm et al., 2004; Sumberg and Okali, 2006; Huisman, de Jong et al. 2000; Marty 2001 19. interdisciplinarity Different disciplines are involved in defining and Folke et al, 2005; Voß and Kemp, 2006 executing the research: in addition to technical and engineering sciences also for instance ecology and the social sciences 20. Elicitation of Researchers allow their research to be Voß and Kemp, 2005; Stirling, 2006; Grin mental models/ critical challenged by stakeholders and present their et al., 2004 selfreflection about own assumption in as far as they are aware of Assumptions them Research results are not presented in an Voß and Kemp, 2005; Stirling, 2006; Grin authoritative way, but in a facilitative way, to et al., 2004 stimulate reflection by the stakeholders about what is possible and what it is they want14 21. explicit Uncertainties are not glossed over but Dietz, et al, 2003; Brugnach et al., 2008 consideration of communicated (in final reports, orally) uncertainty Researchers are willing to talk with stakeholders Dietz, et al, 2003; Brugnach et al., 2008 about uncertainties 22. broad Governments exchange information and data Voß and Kemp, 2006 communication with other governments
14
When research results are presented it is possible (in general) to have an open discussion and provide critical feedback on the conceptual framework, research methods, results and conclusions. Compared to presentation in a hierarchical (top-down) and one-directional way.
62
23. utilization of information 24. decision support system
Governments actively disseminate information and data to the public: on the Internet, but also by producing leaflets, though the media, etc. New information is used in public debates (and is not distorted) New information influences policy River basin information systems are up to standards
Raadgever et al 2008
Raadgever et al 2008
Young, 2002; Willis K.J. & Whittaker, 2002
Adaptive and integrated water management depends on good, trustworthy information about stocks, flows, and processes within the water resource systems being governed, as well as about the humanenvironment interactions affecting those systems. This information must be congruent in scale with environmental events and decisions (Young, 2002; Willis K.J. & Whittaker, 2002). Highly aggregated information may ignore or average out local information that is important in identifying future problems and developing solutions. Effective governance requires not only factual information about the state of the environment and human actions but also information about uncertainty and values (Dietz, et al, 2003: 1908). Scientific understanding of coupled human-biophysical systems will always be uncertain because of inherent unpredictability in the systems and because the science is never complete (Wilson, 2002). Steering and coordination of complex adaptive systems therefore requires reflexive governance, which consists of five key elements (Voß and Kemp, 2006: 17-20): 1) transdisciplinary knowledge production (see variable 18 and 19); 2) experiments and adaptive strategies and institutions (variable 15); 3) anticipation of long-term effects of measures (variable 13); 4) interactive participatory goal formulation (variable 18); and 5) interactive strategy development. For evaluating information management and -sharing this dissertation is using the DPSIR-framework for describing what information is produced, communicated and used. The DPSIR-framework is an oftenapplied causal framework for describing the interactions between society and the environment ((EEA 1999) in (Nilsson 2003)). The framework makes a distinction between Driving forces, Pressures, State, Impact and Responses. Figure 3.6 presents the DPSIR framework applied to an example of flood management (From: Raadgever et al., 2005b).
Figure 3.6 - The DPSIR framework applied to an example of flood management (From: Raadgever et al., 2005b).
63
In order to evaluate to what extent information management in current water management is adaptive, the various stages of information management are used as analytical elements (From: Raadgever et al., 2005b):
Specification of information goals, needs & strategy (this is normally done in Terms of References: a document which describes the purpose and structure of a project, normally created during the initiation phase of the project management cycle); Information production (data collection and interpretation); Communication (exchange of data and produced information); Information utilisation (e.g. in decision-making).
Especially in the first stages adaptive management requires that different disciplines are involved in defining and executing the research: in addition to technical and engineering sciences also for instance ecology and the social sciences (variable 19). Also the interaction between actors that demand information and actors that can supply information is crucial (variable 19). Moreover, clear communication about goals, needs and strategies requires that frames and mental models are made explicit (variable 20). Although uncertainties are often glossed over, explicit consideration of uncertainty, especially regarding the impacts of climate change, are considered crucial in adaptive management (variable 21). Dealing with uncertainties When adaptation to flood situations is necessary it is relatively easy to adapt the tools for disaster reduction management to also deal with future climate situations. There is however one serious issue: uncertainty. When 'normal' floods can be treated as a statistical phenomenon, under climate change conditions the past is no longer the predictor for the future. This increased uncertainty is a characteristic of the whole area of climate change research and policy. A first step to deal with it always includes a scenario analysis leading to 'possible futures', not 'probable futures' as in statistical analysis. These scenarios have to be downscaled to the level of the system that has to be adapted to climate change. Both steps, the scenarios and the downscaling, introduce large uncertainties. There is no way to make these disappear: they have to be dealt with. Hence, developing methods for dealing with uncertainties in decision-making (e.g. long terms scenario analyses, risk assessments, vulnerability assessments) are important elements of adaptive and integrated water management.
3.7
FINANCES AND COST RECOVERY
Adaptive and integrated water management will require a diversification of financial resources using a broad set of private and public instruments (Pahl-Wostl, 2008). Based on relevant literature (see below paragraphs) we have selected a number of variables and indicators enabling us to score this specific dimension of a water management regime (see table 3.7). Resource availability
64
The challenges for the financing of adaptive and integrated water management are to ensure sufficient funding, prevent perverse price incentives, and maximize learning opportunities. Moreover, the total cost should remain acceptable. Financing systems are most robust when they can rely on multiple sources. Moreover, financial as well as ecological sustainability can be improved by recognizing water as an economic good and recovering the costs as much as possible from the users (Global Water Partnership, 2003). At the same time, financial instruments, such as cost recovery, can provide incentives to achieve compliance with environmental rules (Dietz, et al., 2003). Table 3.7 - Variables and indicators for ‘Finances and Cost Recovery’
Dimension
Variable
Indicator
G) Finances and cost recovery
25. resource availability 26. cost recovery
Sufficient (public and private) resources are Leach & Pelkey, 2001 available Costs are recovered from the ‘users’ by public Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007c and private financial instruments (charges, prices, insurance etc.) Authorities can take loans and depreciate their Dietz, et al, 2003, Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007c assets, to facilitate efficient use of resources and replacement of assets Financial resources diversified using a broad set Dietz, et al, 2003, Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007c of private and public financial instruments Wide-spread private sector participation in river Dietz, et al, 2003; Raadgever et al, 2008 basin management
27. allocation of resources
28. private sector participation
Literature
Water pricing Perhaps the best way to utilize water to the best and most-valued uses is to put a price on water, and construct appropriate tariff structures to meet different social, political and economic goals in different situations (Bakker et al., 2008). It has been argued that price policy can help maintain the sustainability of the resource itself: when the price of water reflects its true cost, the resource will be put to its most valuable uses (Rogers et al., 2002). Thereby, and assuming the poor can pay for such services, water pricing could contribute to adaptation and, for instance, if resources become scarce and water use is stabilized or reduced. Water pricing can improve equity, efficiency and sustainability of the resource. Water pricing mechanisms can be used to send a scarcity signal and help balance supply and demand. There is a wide range of policy options available to implement price policy in the water sector. These range from direct pricing to green taxes, effluent fees, direct subsidies, utilities or to the users (Bakker et al., 2008). The choice of policy depends upon the local political and social conditions, as well as the national economics. In addition, there are still many issues that need to be addressed, including an improved understanding of the environmental justice and equity consequences of water pricing. Public-private partnerships In a review of the empirical literature on watershed partnership by Leach & Pelkey (2001), adequate funding was the most frequent factor for successful partnership, followed by effective leadership and management. One of the main challenges of adaptive and integrated water management: how to finance water plans, operations, infrastructure and projects? The last few decennia new forms of finance scheme and structures have become available (Bossert et al., 2006). These modern forms, finance schedules and 65
structures are often known as public-private partnerships (or PPP’s). A PPP refers to a contractual structure formed between a government and private sector organizations that allow for greater private sector participation in the delivery of public value. PPP’s are used around the world to build new and upgrade a wide variety of public facilities such as schools, hospitals, roads, water supply systems and wastewater treatments plans. Compared to traditional financing models, the private sector assumes a greater role in the planning, financing, design, construction, operation, and maintenance of public facilities. Within the context of climate change adaptation PPP’s might enable the public sector to spread the cost of the investment over the lifetime, in contrast to traditional financing where the public sector is required to provide capital, while the benefits will come much later and are mostly uncertain (Water Partner Foundation, 2009; Bossert, 2003). In PPP’s investments can be brought forward by years compared to cash based financing, allowing users to benefit much earlier from the investment (Bossert et al., 2006). Often the private sector has a strong incentive to complete a project quickly because they need the cash flow to pay the costs of capital. Cost savings from PPP’s typically effects in two different forms: lower construction costs and reduced maintenance costs. For more information to PPPs in the water sector see Bossert et al. (2006).
3.8
RISK MANAGEMENT
Risks have often been managed by prescribing technical standards such as regulations for the required size of flood protection systems based on the likelihood of an extreme flooding. However, when 'normal' floods can be treated as a statistical phenomenon, under climate change conditions the past is no longer the predictor for the future. Due to increased uncertainties of climate change the conditions under which such regulations were passed may no longer be fulfilled (Pahl-Wostl, 2008). Acceptable risks need to be negotiated in participatory processes rather than being prescribed by law. Following this logic a set of variables and indicators has been developed in (see table 3.8). Table 3.8 - Variables and indicators for ‘Risk Management’
Dimension
Variable
H) Risk management
29. Risk perception
Indicator
Both formal expert judgment and risk perceptions by the stakeholders 30. Decision-making on Non-governmental stakeholders are involved in acceptable risks decisions on what are acceptable risks 31. Insurance against Insurance against housing and property damage risk is available Harvest insurance mechanisms are available
Literature Brugnach et al., 2008; Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007c Scharpf, 1978; Kickert et al, 1997; Folke et al, 2005; Raadgever et al, 2008 Botzen & Van de Bergh, 2006; Bakker et al., 2008; Bouwer and Vellinga, 2005; Mills, 2007 Botzen & Van de Bergh, 2006; Bakker et al., 2008; Bouwer and Vellinga, 2005; Mills, 2007
Insurance The potential for new patterns of extreme events resulting from climate change will likely increase demand for insurance while challenging the industry’s ability to assume new risks (Mills, 2007). Insurance can be regarded as an adaptation measure, as it transfers risk from localities to regional and global insurance and capital markets (Botzen & Van de Bergh, 2006; Bakker et al.,, 2008). On the other hand, 66
one might also argue that insurance might take away individual responsibility to adapt, for example by moving away from vulnerable areas or taking other precautionary measures. Nevertheless, insurances can play an important role in alleviating the negative impacts of climate change by spreading risks among individuals (Bouwer and Vellinga, 2005). According to Botzen & Van de Bergh (2006) economic efficiency will be improved when private insurance coverage against flood damage is extended. However, a continuing role for the government in insurance arrangements is warranted to overcome problems of insurability of weather-related disasters that exist in the private market.
3.9
EFFECTIVENESS OF (INTERNATIONAL) REGULATION Table 3.9 - Variables and indicators for ‘Effectiveness of (international) regulation’
Dimension
Variable
I) Effectiveness of 32. Level of international compliance regulation
33. Adoption of international regulation
Indicator
Literature
To which extent are coercive sanctions used as legitimate means of generating compliance in hierarchical context? To which extent are coercive sanctions used as legitimate means of generating compliance in institutionalized horizontal setting, in other words, does compliance with regulations vary with the availability of information, institutionalized horizontal coercion, shaming, and adjudication, among other things? Are there any softer paths to compliance in place (e.g. capacity building, legitimacy building, and the voluntary internalization of law)? Country adoption of specific water, environment, or sector related legal reforms, policies, institutions, standards, and programs necessary to address the transboundary priority issues, including stakeholder participation programs County ratification of the regional or global conventions and protocols High-level political commitment to follow up joint action as signified by, among other things, ministerial level declarations or adoption of a joint legal/institutional framework Country commitments to report progress in achieving stress reduction indicators as well as environmental status data to the regional or joint institution Incorporation of country assistance strategies (CAS) in the World Bank or regional development bank or UNDP country-level strategic results framework (SRF)
Lamy 2005; Dietz, et al, 2003; Chayes et al. 1993 ; Weinstein 2000; Ostrom et al., 1994; Tietenberg et al., 2001; Nash, 2002; Garner and Stern, 1996; Weiss and Jacobson, 1998
Lamy 2005; Dietz, et al, 2003; Chayes et al. 1993 ; Weinstein 2000; Ostrom et al., 1994; Tietenberg et al., 2001; Nash, 2002; Garner and Stern, 1996; Weiss and Jacobson, 1998
Most neo-liberals believe that states cooperate to achieve absolute gains and the greatest obstacle to cooperation is ‘cheating’ or non-compliance by other states (Lamy 2005: 214). Since cooperation is considered an important element in adaptive and integrated water management it is also important to include, therefore, the level of compliance as a variable in our analytical framework. Effective governance requires that the rules of resource use are generally followed, with reasonable standards for tolerating modest violations (Dietz, et al, 2003: 1909). It is generally most effective to impose modest sanctions on first offenders, and gradually increase the severity of sanctions for those who do not learn from their first or second encounter (Weinstein 2000; Ostrom et al., 1994). According to 67
Chayes et al. (1993, p 205) it is not so much coercion by a superior power but good management and institutionalized incentive mechanisms that lead to satisfactory levels of compliance. Voluntary approaches and those based on information disclosure have only begun to receive careful scientific attention as supplements to other tools (Tietenberg et al., 2001; Nash, 2002). Success appears to depend on the existence of incentives that benefit leaders in volunteering over laggards and on the simultaneous use of other strategies, particularly ones that create incentives for compliance (Tietenberg et al., 2001; Garner and Stern, 1996). Difficulties of sanctioning pose major problems for international agreements (Weiss and Jacobson, 1998).
68
CHAPTER 4
A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING DIFFERENT LEVELS OF POLICY LEARNING
By Patrick Huntjens
4.1
INTRODUCTION
A second and independent methodology has been developed (Huntjens et al., 2008) for assessing the levels of policy learning being observed in the adaptation strategies of each water management regime. The adaptation strategies for dealing with floods and/or droughts are being defined as an output of a water management regime. Policy learning is a concept being used by different authors in the field of public administration (e.g. Hall, 1988; Bennet and Howlett, 1992; Sanderson, 2002; Leicester, 2007; Grin & Loeber, 2007; Sabatier, 1988, 1991; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). In this PhD research we define policy learning as a 'deliberate attempt to adjust the goals or techniques of policy in the light of the consequences of past policy and new information so as to better attain the ultimate objects of governance' (Hall, 1988: 6). Policy learning involves a socially-conditioned discursive or argumentative process of development of cognitive schemes or frames which questions the goals and assumptions of policies (Sanderson, 2002: 6). Policy changes have been explained in terms of learning by Sabatier and Jenkins- Smith (1999) through their Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). However, one limitation in the ACF is that advocacy coalitions take their identity from core beliefs, they are conservative of them and thus also of the policy positions they advocate (Weible et al., 2009). Conservatism leads Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier (1993) to propose that collective learning appears not from change within policy coalitions, but as a result of the changing influence of policy coalitions on the whole. In this model, the system learns without any learning on the part of policy coalitions or individuals. Movement is argued to be stimulated by shocks and trends exogenous to the system – including wider political change, legislative reform or stressors such as climate change. By doing so, the ACF does not explicitly account for, or is ambiguous about, the role of ideas and self-interest in the policy process (e.g., Kübler, 1999; Compston and Madsen, 2001). As Argyris and Schön (1996) have shown, changing values is far more difficult than changing practices. Argyris and Schön consider double loop learning more difficult than single loop learning, because it requires changes to values. Individuals tend to avoid challenging established values. Argyris and Schön (1996) argue this is for three reasons: -
Individual risk aversion that leads actors to avoid direct interpersonal confrontations and public discussion of sensitive issues which might expose the actor to future negative repercussions.
-
A desire to protect others by avoiding the testing of assumptions where this might evoke negative feelings and by keeping others from exposure to blame.
-
A wish to control the situation by keeping your own view private and avoiding any public questioning which might refute it.
69
It is important to recognize that policies change in a variety of different ways. As has long been recognized, some policies are new and innovative, while others are merely incremental refinements of earlier policies (Hogwood and Peters, 1983; Polsby, 1984). In other words, policy learning may have different levels of intensity (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007b). For distinguishing between different levels of policy learning we use the concept of double loop learning (Argyris, 1999) and triple loop learning (Hargrove, 2002), as an extension of the double loop concept (see figure 4.1). The double and triple loop learning concepts are better suited for my comparative analyses than other policy learning concepts, such as the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) of Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1988, 1993, 1999). The most important reason is that, in contrast to the ACF, the single, double and triple loop learning concepts allow for distinguishing between different levels of policy learning, which is important for conducting a multivalueQCA, since Boolean minimization requires dichomotization of an output value (see chapter 5).
Context
Frame of reference
Actions
Results (Errors)
Single loop learning
Double loop learning
Triple loop learning Regime transformation / paradigm shift (e.g. from ‘fight against water’ to ‘living with water’ and change of regulatory framework)
Changing the frame of reference and guiding assumptions (e.g. increase in the diversity of measures, such as retention areas and by-passes).
Refinement of established actions without changing guiding assumptions or without taking alternative actions into account (e.g. increase height of dikes to improve flood protection).
Figure 4.1 – Triple loop learning concept derived from Hargrove (2002), and adjusted by Huntjens et al. (2008)
In order to distinguish different learning processes and how to classify them according to the triple loop concept it is useful to start with some definitions (based on Hargrove, 2002): o
Single loop learning (SLL) – refinement of established actions to improve performance without changing guiding assumptions or without taking entirely alternative actions into account (e.g. increase height of dikes to improve flood protection).
o
Double loop learning (DLL) – change in frame of reference and guiding assumptions (e.g. increase boundaries for flood management and encourage collaboration across national boundaries in large river basins).
70
o
Triple loop learning (TLL) – transformation of context to change factors that determine the frame of reference. This kind of learning refers to transitions of the whole regime. Values and norms are shaped and stabilized by the structural context.
Below sections intend to make the concepts of single, double, and triple loop learning more tangible (based on relevant literature), for the purpose of developing an operational framework to distinguish between different levels of learning. Types of Complexity—Why Double and Triple-Loop Learning are needed When there are low levels of complexity, single-loop learning often will be enough to stay on track (Kahane, 2004). Simple problems can be solved using processes that: 1) focus on the parts of a problem in isolation; 2) rely heavily on what has worked in the past or elsewhere (“best practices”), and; 3) are open to solutions proposed by leaders or experts (From: Kahane, 2004). When the levels of complexity in our work and the issues we are working with are high, it becomes more critical for us to be able to also use double- and triple-loop learning to: 1) succeed in new contexts; 2) make learning an integral activity, and 3) ultimately to achieve results (From: Kahane, 2004). According to Kahane (2004:31) problems of high social complexity cannot be peacefully solved by authorities from a top-down perspective; the people involved must participate in creating and implement solutions. As we focus on lasting change in the community, we are dealing with increasingly high levels of three types of complexity (See table 4.1) where success only comes through using processes that (based on Kahane, 2004): 1) focus on working with all the parts as a single system; 2) accept that solutions emerge as situations unfold, and 3) involve the concerned people in developing the solutions. Table 4.1 Three types of complexity, with low and high levels of complexity (Adapted from Kahane, 2004)
Type Of Complexity
Low
High
Dynamic Focus is on various parts or the whole system?
Cause and effect are close together in space and time. Solutions can be found by testing and fixing one part at a time.
Generative Solutions are planned or emergent?
Future is familiar and predictable. Solutions from the past or other places can be repeated or replicated.
Social Solutions come from leaders or from participants?
People involved have common assumptions, values, rationales and objectives. A leader or expert can propose a solution with which everyone agrees.
Cause and effect are far apart in space and time. Solution can be found only when situation is understood systemically, taking account of the interrelationships among the parts and the functioning of the system as whole. Future is unfamiliar and unpredictable. Solutions cannot be calculated in advance based on what has worked in the past. Emergent solutions have to worked out as situations unfold. People involved look at things very differently. Solutions cannot be given by authorities; the people involved must participate in creating and implementing solutions.
71
4.2
SINGLE LOOP LEARNING
Single loop learning (SLL): For Argyris and Schön (1978) learning involves the detection and correction of error. Where something goes wrong, it is suggested, an initial port of call for many people is to look for another strategy that will address and work within the governing variables. In other words, given or chosen goals, values, plans and rules are operationalized rather than questioned. According to Argyris and Schön (1974), this is single-loop learning. According to Adam Kahane (2004) single-loop learning assumes that problems and their solutions are close to each other in time and space (though they often aren't). In this form of learning, we are primarily considering our actions. Small changes are made to specific practices or behaviors, based on what has or has not worked in the past. This involves doing things better without necessarily examining or challenging our underlying beliefs and assumptions. The goal is improvements and fixes that often take the form of procedures or rules. Single-loop learning leads to making minor fixes or adjustments, like using a thermostat to regulate temperature. SLL > Single-loop learning seems to be present when goals, values, frameworks and, to a significant extent, strategies are taken for granted. The emphasis is on ‘techniques and making techniques more efficient’ (Usher and Bryant: 1989: 87) Below sections will elaborate on the concepts of double loop and triple loop learning, although it is not always easy to distinguish them in practice. Nevertheless, the conceptual distinction is useful, especially since the triple loop learning concept (Hargrove, 2002) is a refinement of the original double loop learning concept by Argyris (1999), and as such it allows for a more detailed operationalization when assessing the water management regimes in the case studies. Despite the fact that there is a conceptual difference between double loop and triple loop learning, this paper will make an operational distinction between single loop learning and ‘at least double loop learning’, for the purpose of obtaining a dichotomous outcome necessary for conducting a formal comparative analysis (see chapter 5). The latter category may include (elements of) triple loop learning, although chapter 5 will show the difficulties in making an operational distinction between double loop and triple loop learning based on empirical data collected for this specific research.
4.3
DOUBLE LOOP LEARNING
Double loop learning (DLL): According to Adam Kahane (2004) double-loop learning leads to insights about why a solution works. In this form of learning, we are considering our actions in the framework of our operating assumptions. This is the level of process analysis where people become observers of themselves, asking, “What is going on here? What are the patterns?” We need this insight to understand the pattern. We change the way we make decisions and deepen understanding of our assumptions. Double-loop learning works with major fixes or changes, like redesigning an organizational function or structure. According to Argyris & Schon (1978, p.3) double-loop learning occurs when error is detected and corrected in ways that involve the modification of an organization's underlying norms, policies and 72
objectives. They contend that organizations need to engage in both single- and double-loop learning; that is to say, deuterolearning. When an organization engages in deutero-learning its members learn about the previous context for learning. They reflect on and inquire into previous episodes of organizational learning, or failure to learn. They discover what they did that facilitated or inhibited learning, they invent new strategies for learning, they produce these strategies, and they evaluate and generalize what they have produced (Argyris & Schon, 1978, p. 4). M. Leann Brown (2000) concludes in a study on environmental policy making in the European Union that the EU exhibits both single-loop (acquiring new information including policy feedback and new causal understandings) and double-loop learning (promulgating more effective policies and evidencing enhanced goal achievement), i.e., deutero-learning. Brown (2000, p. 3) shows that clear indicators that organizational learning is occurring or has occurred are modifications in personnel, programs, and legal and organizational structures that incorporate new information (including policy feedback) and causal understandings that yield more intellectually perceptive processes, a wider range of capabilities, and more effective policy. DLL > modifications (as the result of organizational learning!) in personnel, programs, and legal and organizational structures that incorporate new information (including policy feedback) and causal understandings that yield more intellectually perceptive processes, a wider range of capabilities, and more effective policy (Brown, 2000, p. 3) Knowledge and the ability to act upon new insights are continuously enacted in social processes (Folke et al., 2005). Hence, the social network of stakeholders is an invaluable asset for learning and dealing with change. This bottom-up process is emerging from partnerships and networks (Geels et al., 2004). DLL > When actor networks are being changed by including new and different stakeholders, supporting reflection on own assumptions and showing new possibilities. Uncertainty: Assessing and handling uncertainties is an increasingly important issue in adaptive water management and adaptive governance (Campolongo, et al., 2000; Dewulf, et al., 2008; Isendahl, et al., 2010). Frequently, uncertainty is considered an attribute associated only with the quality of technical information used to characterize or understand a system. However, this description is limited when dealing with river basin management issues, where the conflicting views about how the system operates, the diversity of stakeholder’s expectations and value systems may provoke disagreement about how the river basin should be managed (Dewulf, et al., 2008). Uncertainties in water management can take different forms. Therefore, identifying what sorts of uncertainty are present is the first step that is needed to find solutions. DLL > Dealing with uncertainties starts with identifying what sorts of uncertainty are present (e.g. either in the nature of uncertainty (related to variability, incomplete knowledge, or multiple knowledge frames), or in the object of uncertainty (related to the natural, technical, or social system)) (Brugnach, et al., 2008) In this paper we use a broad definition of uncertainty, trying to cover different theoretical approaches to the concept: Uncertainty refers to the situation in which there is not a unique and complete understanding of the system to be managed (Brugnach, et al., 2008). For example, in this paper we are focusing on how strategies are dealing with issue of climate change impacts. Hence, the incorporation of climate change scenarios in current policy-making is an important parameter for assessing whether uncertainties have been taken into account. 73
DLL > When uncertainties have been taken into account in current policy-making (e.g. adaptation strategies based on climate change scenarios)
4.4
TRIPLE LOOP LEARNING
As being mentioned before, triple loop learning is a refinement of the original double loop learning concept by Argyris (1999), and as such it allows for a more detailed operationalization when assessing the water management regimes in this paper. Triple loop learning (also called transformational learning) will help to bring about fundamental shifts in thinking and attitude (Hargrove, 2002:60). It starts with declaring powerful new possibilities for water management and then translating them into goals that take people and organizations beyond what they already think and know based on their own or organizational orthodoxies or experience (Hargrove, 2002: 115), or to take them beyond their old management styles. Learning means correcting mistakes and producing intended results for the first time. This requires feedback that removes the blinders from people’s eyes, but also in making new distinctions that open up new possibilities for them or allows them to think differently (DLL) (Hargrove, 2002: 115-116). The concept of triple loop learning also relates to the work of Anthony Giddens (1984), who argues that social structure is both the medium and outcome of action. According to Anthony Giddens (1984) and Alexander Wendt (1987) actors have preferences which they cannot realize without collective action; based on these preferences they shape and re-shape social structures (albeit with unintended consequences in the long term); once these social structures are in place, they shape and re-shape the actors themselves and their preferences. In other words, the constitution of agents and structures are not two independently sets of phenomena, meaning that structures should not be treated as external to individuals. This is what Voß and Kemp (2005) call second-order reflexivity, which is about self-critical and self-conscious reflection on processes of modernity, particularly instrumental rationality. It evokes a sense of agency, intention and change. Here actors reflect on and confront not only the self-induced problems of modernity, but also the approaches, structures and systems that reproduce them (Stirling, 2006; Grin et al., 2004). In other words, agents have the ability to look at actions to judge their effectiveness in achieving their objectives. This means that if agents can reproduce structure through action, they can also transform it. According to Hargrove (2002:116-117), transformation (triple loop learning) is about intervening in the context so as to produce a profound alteration. Hargrove defines context as the background against which people are standing that determines their perceptions of reality. This background determines what they see is possible and achievable, and from it they draw their identity and formulate their thinking and attitudes. Important questions are: What is the context from which the management regime draws its identity that results in its coping strategies; how does the management regime intervene in the context in order to improve its strategies? According to Hargrove (2002:118) context involves goals and aspirations that are being shaped by history, norms and values that shape social behavior or community behavior, and history of successes and failures. And important element of context is horizon of possibility (set by personal or cultural history). Triple loop learning is about expanding horizons of possibility (Hargrove, 2002:118). This involves making powerful declarations and dismantling limiting beliefs and assumptions. 74
TLL > When horizons of possibility are being expanded (e.g. by entirely new management measures or entirely new physical interventions in the river basin) Context also involves automatic responses to deal with risk, disagreement, conflict, and automatic ways of thinking based on management orthodoxies (e.g. ‘fight against floods’ versus ‘living with floods’ or ‘room for rivers’). TLL > When automatic responses to deal with risk are being altered Paradigms: as human being or society as a whole we inherit certain master paradigms that tend to shape, limit, and define our thinking and behavior, or define our governance system in case of a society (Hargrove, 2002:119). A water management paradigm refers to a set of basic assumptions about the nature of the system to be managed, the goals of management and the ways in which these management goals can be achieved (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2006). The paradigm is shared by what can be called an epistemic community of the actors involved in water management. The paradigm is manifested in artefacts such as technical infrastructure, planning approaches, regulations, engineering practices, models etc. A paradigm shift involves major structural changes in infrastructure and regulatory frameworks. But it involves first of all learning processes which have to start at the level of mental models. It is needed to engage in a critical reflection on innovative management approaches based on sound and unbiased deliberations. (PahlWostl, et al., 2006). TLL > When a paradigm shift takes place, that alters our way of thinking and behaviour TLL > When a major structural change has been taking place in the regulatory framework for dealing with floods or droughts The fact is that automatic responses, horizon of possibility, and paradigms are like a box, and once inside the box it becomes very difficult to act outside of it. The only way to break out of the box is transformation, or triple loop learning. According to Hargrove (2002: 119) there are only two ways to alter the context, and both are valid. One way is to make a powerful declaration of possibility that moves beyond history, horizon of possibility, and then standing inside that possibility. The other way to intervene in the context has to do with shifting the perspectives, beliefs, and assumptions that constitute the context - that is, reframing of the mind-set. This is not easy, since people don’t just have their perspective; they become their perspective. They don’t just have their beliefs; they become their beliefs. They don’t just have their winning strategy; they become their winning strategy. Intervening in these, even with the best intentions, is likely to produce defensive reactions. The triple loop concept of Hargrove (2002) has been operationalised into a list of indicators (table 4.2) for assessing the type of learning being reflected in the most advanced adaptation strategies in the casestudies under consideration (see Chapter 7 and 8). The purpose of this assessment is to determine which type of learning is dominant in each of these strategies.
75
Table 4.2 – Overview of indicators for assessing the type of learning being reflected in the most advanced adaptation strategies in the case-studies under consideration. For each indicator reference to related literature is being provided
Type of learning Single loop learning (Abbreviation: SLL)
Double loop learning (Abbreviation: DLL)
Triple loop learning (Abbreviation: TLL)
4.5
Indicators 1) When small changes are made to specific practices or behaviours, based on what has or has not worked in the past. This involves doing things better without necessarily examining or challenging underlying beliefs and assumptions (Kahane, 2004). In other words, goals, values, plans and rules are operationalized rather than questioned (Argyris and Schön, 1974) 2) When goals, values, frameworks and, to a significant extent, strategies are taken for granted. The emphasis is on ‘techniques and making techniques more efficient’ (Usher and Bryant: 1989: 87) > e.g. increase height of dikes for flood protection 1) When modifications (as the result sof learning) are occurring, or have occurred, in personnel, programs, and legal and organizational structures that incorporate new information (including policy feedback) and causal understandings that yield more intellectually perceptive processes, a wider range of capabilities, and more effective policy (Brown, 2000:3) 2) When actor networks are being changed by including new and different stakeholders, supporting reflection on own assumptions and showing new possibilities. The social network of stakeholders is being used as an invaluable asset for learning and dealing with change (Folke et al., 2005; Geels et al., 2004 ) 3) When uncertainties are being identified, as a first step that is needed to find solutions (Brugnach, et al., 2008), and when (identified) uncertainties have been taken into account in current policy-making, for example by adaptation strategies based on climate change scenarios (Huntjens, et al., 2007) 1) When horizons of possibility are being expanded (Hargrove, 2002:118), for example by developing and implementing entirely new management measures or entirely new physical interventions in the river basin (Huntjens, et al., 2007) 2) When a paradigm shift takes place, that alters our way of thinking and behaviour (Hargrove, 2002:119, Pahl-Wostl, et al., 2006) 3) When a major structural change has been taking place in the regulatory framework for dealing with floods or droughts
RESEARCH QUESTIONS FOR ASSESSING LEVELS OF LEARNING
The above sections have been translated into a list of research for assessing the levels of learning in the adaptation strategies under consideration (see chapter 7 and 8): o
Strategy’s name, including references to policy document(s)
o
Current status in strategy development (which policy phases have been finalized)?
o
Strategy’s objectives
o
Most important driver(s) to initiate strategy development 76
o
How does new information / innovations enter the policy-making process (e.g. via informal (shadow) networks, formal commissions etc)?
o
Planned actions: Entirely new management measures?
o
Planned actions: Entirely new physical interventions in river basin?
o
Are structural constraints (e.g. political, economical, technical, etc.) being recognized? and how are they being addressed? For example, was there a change in the regulatory framework? or an adjustment in the property rights system? Or in the implementation of cost-recovery mechanisms?
o
Are uncertainties being recognized? If yes, how are they perceived and addressed?
o
Changes in the actor network? Was there a change in mandates/positions/interests? Did entirely new actors become involved?
o
Are there any new norms and values which have influenced the policy-making?
77
CHAPTER 5 COMPARING COMPLEX WATER GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS BY USING MULTI-VALUE QCA 15
Public document
By Patrick Huntjens¹ and Benoit Rihoux²
¹ Institute of Environmental System Analysis, University of Osnabrueck, Germany ² Centre de Politique Comparee (CPC), Unite de Science Politique et de Relations Internationales (SPRI), Universite de catholique de Louvain (UCL), Belgium
Introduction This chapter introduces results from a method known as qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), which is based on Boolean comparative logic (Ragin, 1987, 2008). This method compares different combinations of independent variables in relation to a dependent variable, and then simplifies the causal conditions using a bottom-up data reduction process. In this chapter we will present a detailed description of how this method has been used to identify how different types of interactions among independent variables in AIWM are related to the level of policy learning in river basin management. QCA is particularly suitable for bringing out the full range of causal conditions associated with a particular outcome, and for identifying conjunctures of such conditions (Ragin, 1987, 2008; Rihoux and Ragin, 2008). An essential step in the procedure of a formal comparative analysis using Boolean minimization techniques is the reduction of (qualitative and/or quantitative) data into a set of binary variables. A normal QCA would require the dichotomization of every variable in absence/presence or low/high, respectively leading to 0’s and 1’s. However, for an appropriate description of the conditions in the casestudies this would be too simplistic and valuable information would be lost, especially since many of the conditions are classified in between ‘non-adaptive (traditional) regime’ and ‘integrated, adaptive regime’. Hence, it is more appropriate to use mvQCA (multi-value QCA). One of the major consequences of using mvQCA is the loss of parsimony; however in this case the preservation of valuable and essential information, related to the focus on the transition from non-adaptive towards adaptive regimes, is
15
This chapter is the methodological section of: Huntjens, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., Rihoux, B., Flachner, Z., Neto, S., Koskova, R., Schlueter, M., Nabide Kiti, I., Dickens, C. (2008) The role of adaptive and integrated water management (AIWM) in developing climate change adaptation strategies for dealing with floods and droughts - A formal comparative analysis of eight water management regimes in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Deliverable 1.7.9b of the NeWater project, www.newater.info
79
regarded as more important. Therefore, below results present weighted averages between a range of 0 and 2 (with ‘0’ as non-adaptive and non-integrated regime; and ‘2’ as adaptive and integrated regime). The specific objective for using multi-value QCA (mvQCA) in this paper is to identify how different types of interactions among many independent variables in AIWM are related to an outcome of interest (= level of policy learning in river basin management). Our method allows different causal models leading to a particular outcome, meaning that we are not looking for a blueprint in water management systems. Table 5.1 shows the Raw Data Table after drawing data from table 7.5 and 7.8 in chapter 7. The first nine columns show data based on table 7.5, while the last column shows data based on table 7.8. Hence, the last column shows the output of each management system (level of learning), but it is NOT a summary or synthesis of the first nine columns, since the outputs have been independently assessed. For the first nine columns, ‘0’ indicates a condition variable belonging to a non-adaptive (traditional) regime, ‘1’ indicates a condition variable in between non-adaptive and adaptive, ‘2’ indicates a condition variable belonging to an integrated adaptive regime. For the last column, ‘0’ indicates an output (= adaptation strategy) dominated by single loop learning, ‘1’ indicates on output dominated by double/triple loop learning.
Table 5.1 - Raw Data Table (a synthesis by drawing data from table 7.5 and 7.8 in chapter 7).
Table 5.1 shows a contradiction in the outputs: while the adaptation strategies in the Hungarian Tisza are dominated by double loop learning (output = ‘1’), the scores on the causal conditions of the management system in the Hungarian Tisza belong to the (relatively) lowest of all case-studies. In other words, one would expect a ‘0’ output for this case-study, since other management systems (e.g. Alentejo, AmuDarya, and Kagera) with similar or even better scores on the causal conditions are also showing a ‘0’ output (= dominated by single loop learning). Hence, including the Hungarian Tisza in the mvQCA would propably lead to contradictions in the truth table (see section 5.1). 80
When a truth table shows such a contradiction it is not valid for conducting a Boolean minimization. Therefore this specific contradiction needs to be resolved. A logical explanation for such a contradiction is the presence or absence of an additional causal condition. For example, the importance of informal (shadow) networks has been highlighted by several researchers in Hungary - namely in flood protection, in flexible land and property management and in the formulation of the VTT as a flood defence strategy (Matczak et al, 2008). At the same time, literature indicates that the influence of such an informal (shadow) network is lacking in the Alentejo Region in Portugal (Videira, et al., 2005). Also regarding Uzbekistan, Wegerich (2007) shows that since independence in Uzbekistan, the state’s influence on decision making over water allocation has grown rather than been reduced, while civil society is highly underdeveloped. According to Wegerich a new comanagement arrangement is not so likely in such circumstances. Experts in the Kagera Basin have indicated that the influence of informal shadow networks on current policy making is very limited so far. For the purpose of this comparative analysis it is important to acknowledge the fact that the Hungarian Tisza is an exceptional case due to an additional causal condition (e.g. the influence of a shadow network). Assessing which causal condition(s) could explain the output of this case-study is beyond the scope of this paper, although a likely explanation as been given in above paragraph. Nevertheless, for this specifc mvQCA the Hungarian Tisza will be left out in order to avoid contradictions in the Truth Table. This resulted in the raw data table shown below (table 5.1b).
Table 5.1b - Raw Data Table (without Hungarian Tisza).
81
5.1
DATA REDUCTION
The next step in conducting a formal comparative analysis (using mvQCA) is threshold setting. Thresholdsetting is necessary for distinguishing between clusters on one condition variable, leading to dichotomous or trichotomous variables. This type of data reduction is necessary for developing models (= combinations of condition variables leading to a particular outcome) to be tested with mvQCA. In order to ensure transparency in the analysis (= QCA good practice) this section represents the steps taken to obtain the best model possible. First, in order to obtain the best model possible it is necessary to conduct a series of exploratory analyses, depending on various ways of operationalizing the conditions. For this purpose we have used different strategies for setting thresholds on each condition variable: 1) Threshold setting by modeller’s judgement; 2) Threshold setting on median; 3) Systematic threshold setting; and 4) Multiple modelling between two extreme opposite models. Each strategy resulted in different models being used for boolean minimization. Second, the purpose of these successive analyses is to obtain the best model possible (meaningful in terms of cases, theory, devoid of contradictory configurations and, at the same time, sufficiently “short” (not too many conditions, because it is a “small N” design). Of course, these last 2 goals are somewhat “in tension”: the shorter the model, the more you run the risk of obtaining contradictory configurations. Data reduction strategy 1 – Threshold setting by modeller’s judgement The first strategy is to determine the thresholds on each condition variable by means of modeller’s judgement. Thresholds have been set by distinguishing between clusters of average scores. In other words, clusters haven been separated by setting one threshold in between them. If possible, condition variables have been clustered into two groups, leading to a dichotomous variable, for others three clusters were more appropriate, leading to a trichotomous variable. Table A shows mvQCA data based on this strategy. On the conditon variable Agency (‘Lead’) there are two distinct clusters of weighted averages. One cluster is including the Ohre Basin and Rivierenland with relatively high scores on this condition variable. The other case-studies belong to the cluster including relatively low scores. Hence, one threshold (on 1.2) has been set between these two distinct clusters. For the condition variable Awareness Raising and Capacity building (‘Cap’) three distinct clusters can be recognized, hence, two thresholds have been set in order to distinguish between them. On the condition variable Type of governance (‘Gov’) two thresholds have been chosen (resulting in three clusters), since the role or influence of civil society and lower level governments in Rivierenland is clearly more visible than in case-studies which show limited bottom-up governance (e.g. Tisza Ukraine, Ohre Basin, and Upper Vaal), while some case-studies are cleary dominated by top-down governance (e.g. Alentejo, AmuDarya and Kagera). On the condition variable Cooperation structures (‘Coop’) two distinct clusters can be recognized, and one exceptional high score for Rivierenland. Hence, to distinguish between these scores two thresholds have been set.
82
The condition variable Information Management (‘Inf’) shows the largest difference, of all variables, between the lowest (0.7) and highest average (1.8). Because of this relatively large difference, plus the clear presence of three distinct clusters, two thresholds have been set. For the condition variables Policy development and implementation (‘Pol’), Finances and Cost Recovery (‘Fin’), Risk Management (‘Ris’), and Effectiveness of International regulation (‘Eff’), two distinct clusters on each variables were recognized. Hence, one threshold has been set on each one of them, leading to dichotomous variables. Boolean minimization (explaining 1 outcomes, including logical remainders) shows that when Coop is 1 or 2, or Inf is 2 it will lead to a positive outcome. Boolean minimization (explaining 0 outcomes, including logical remainders) shows that when Coop is 0 or Inf is 0 or 1 it will lead to a negative outcome.
Table A – mvQCA data based on strategy 1
Data reduction strategy 2 – Threshold setting on median The second strategy involves a less arbitrary mode of setting thresholds, although this stategy runs the risk of distinguishing between scores which are very close to each other. Hence, distinctions between case-studies may be exaggerated. This strategy is setting one threshold on each condition variable on the same position as the median of each distribution of scores. The median is the middle of a distribution: half of the scores are above the median and half are below the median. Table B shows mvQCA data based on this strategy. Boolean minimization (explaining 1 outcomes, including logical remainders) shows that when Cap, Coop, Pol, Inf, Fin, or Risk are 1 it will lead to a positive outcome. Boolean minimization (explaining 0 outcomes, including logical remainders) shows that when Cap, Coop, Pol, Inf, Fin, or Risk are 0 it will lead to a negative outcome. Table B shows mvQCA data based on this strategy.
83
Table B - mvQCA data based on strategy 2
Data reduction strategy 3 – Systematic threshold setting The third strategy is setting the threshold exactly in between the lowest and highest score on each condition variable. Table C shows mvQCA data based on this strategy. Boolean minimization (explaining 1 outcomes, including logical remainders) shows that when Cap, Inf, or Risk are 1 it will lead to a positive outcome. Boolean minimization (explaining 0 outcomes, including logical remainders) shows that when Cap, Inf, or Risk are 0 it will lead to a negative outcome.
Table C - mvQCA data based on strategy 3
Data reduction strategy 4 - Multiple modelling between two extreme opposite models In this strategy the range between the lowest and highest score on each condition variable is divided by three, resulting in three different categories: high, medium and low. For example, when the range between the lowest and highest score is 0.9 (see for example ‘Cap’ and ‘Gov’) then each category has a range of 0.3. Then the categorie ‘low’ is defined by the range starting from the lowest category plus 0.3. For the condition variable ‘Cap’ this method results in the following categories: low = 0.6-0.9; medium = 0.9-1.2; high = 1.2-1.5. After dividing all condition variables in three categories the next step is to deduct 84
extreme models. For the first extreme model (Model 1) all condition variables are being scored according to the principle: low = 0 and medium and high = 1. The second extreme, and opposite, model (Model 2) is scored according to the principle: low and medium = 0; high = 1. This strategy is resulting in two extreme opposite models with one threshold on each condition variable (see table D and E). For model A Boolean minimization (explaining 1 outcomes, including logical remainders) shows that when Coop is 1 it will lead to a positive outcome. Boolean minimization (explaining 0 outcomes, including logical remainders) shows that when Coop is 0 it will lead to a negative outcome. For model B Boolean minimization (explaining 1 outcomes, including logical remainders) shows that when Fin is 1 it will lead to a positive outcome. Boolean minimization (explaining 0 outcomes, including logical remainders) shows that when Fin is 0 it will lead to a negative outcome. The next step is developing models which are located in between Model 1 and 2. This has been done by taking Model 1 as a starting point, and setting each threshold 0.1 higher (Model 3). Another model has been developed by taking Model 2 as a starting point, and setting each threshold 0.1 lower (Model 4). For model C Boolean minimization (explaining 1 outcomes, including logical remainders) shows that when Cap, Coop, Inf or Ris are 1 it will lead to a positive outcome. Boolean minimization (explaining 0 outcomes, including logical remainders) shows that when Cap, Coop, Inf or Ris are 0 it will lead to a negative outcome. For model 4 Boolean minimization (explaining 1 outcomes, including logical remainders) shows that when Pol, Inf, Fin or Ris are 1 it will lead to a positive outcome. Boolean minimization (explaining 0 outcomes, including logical remainders) shows that when Pol, Inf, Fin or Ris are 0 it will lead to a negative outcome.
Table D - mvQCA data based on strategy 4, and showing model 1 variant for each condition variable
85
Table E - mvQCA data based on strategy 4, and showing model 2 variant for each condition variable
Intermediate conclusion Based on the above strategies for data reduction 7 different models have been tested with Boolean minimization. The first observation is that the condition variables Agency (‘Lead’), Governance (‘Gov’) and Effectiveness of International Regulation (‘Eff’) are not mentioned in any of the minimal formulas, meaning that these condition variables are not relevant in explaining the outcomes. Hence, these specific condition variables are being left out in in the following Boolean minimizations, in order to reduce the number of simplifying assumptions. Furthermore, the scores on the condition variable Awareness Raising and Capacity Building do not allow for a valid comparison between the case-studies, since the weighted averages are not representative for the current status of human capital. For example, while the Upper Vaal case-study is having a high score on this variable, literature indicates that South African water management is suffering from an extreme lack of skills and human capacity (Mukheibir, 2007). In other words, capacity building is high on the agenda (explaing the high scores on this variable), while the capacity itself is quite problematic. At the same time, Rivierenland is also showing high scores on this variable, but in this case the human capital is not problematic. Hence, there cannot be a valid comparison of scores on this specific variable, and for this reason it will be left out in the mvQCA. The goal of the successive analyses above was to obtain the best model possible. Compared to the other strategies we find that strategy 1 is meaningful in terms of cases, theory, devoid of contradictory configurations and, at the same time, sufficiently “short” (not too many conditions, because it is a “small N” design). Of course, these last 2 goals are somewhat “in tension”: the shorter the model, the more you run the risk of obtaining contradictory configurations. We find that strategy 1 is the least risky in this respect.
5.2
TRUTH TABLE
The Truth Table shows a summary of both the different combinations of input values (independent variables) and their associated output values (the dependent variable). Based on the results of section 5.1 four condition variables have been left out in order to reduce the number of simplifying assumptions, resulting in a truth table with five causal condtions. Table 5.2 show the truth table based on strategy 1. 86
Table 5.2 – Representative Truth Table (based on strategy 1) with five causal conditions.
Case ID Coop Rivierenland 2 Alentejo 0 Ohre,Upper Vaal1 Ukraine 0 AmuDarya 0 Kagera 0
Pol 1 0 1 0 0 1
Inf 2 0 2 1 0 1
Fin 1 1 1 0 0 0
Ris 1 1 1 0 0 0
Output 1 0 1 0 0 0
The most important observation at this point is that there seems to be some “logic” in the data shown in the truth table. For example, when the output is “1” there is a higher density of “1” and “2” condition values, while there is a higher density of “0” condition values when the output is “0”. This observation is consistent with our working hypothesis stating that a higher level of AIWM is showing a different response in coping with floods and droughts than case-studies with a lower level of AIWM. The response in the case-studies with a higher level of AIWM is different in terms of higher levels of learning, being reflected and/or consolidated in the adaptation strategies to deal with floods or droughts.
5.3
BOOLEAN MINIMIZATION
The analyses shown below are based on truth table 5.2. Since no contradicting simplifying assumptions (CSA’s) have been identified, it means that the Boolean minimization was valid, and the minimal formula provides a justified identification of specific configurations of conditions in Adaptive and Integrated Water Management (AIWM) that lead to higher levels of learning in river basin management (being reflected and/or consolidated by CC adaptation strategies to deal with either floods or droughts). The analysis, explaining the ‘0’ outcomes (without logical remainders), is producing the following minimal formula: [formula 1] Coop{0} * Inf{1} * Fin{0} * Ris{0} +
Coop{0} * Pol{0} * Inf{0} * Fin{1} * Ris{1} +
Coop{0} * Pol{0} * Inf{0} * Fin{0} * Ris{0}
(Ukraine+Kagera)
(Alentejo)
(AmuDarya)
Output {0}
Translation of formula 1 into verbal statements: “In the case-studies Ukrainian Tisza and Kagera Basin, single loop learning is dominant when the conditions cooperation structures, finances and cost recovery and risk management show a “0” value, and information management shows a “1’’ value.” Or
87
“In the case-study Alentejo, single loop learning is dominant when the conditions cooperation structures, policy development and -implementation, information management show a “0” value, and the conditions finances and cost recovery and risk management show a “1” value.” Or “In the case-study AmuDarya, single loop learning is dominant when all conditions show a “0” value.” Not much parimony is gained with formula 1, except that the condition policy development and implementation does not play a role in explaining the outcome in the case-studies Ukrainian Tisza and Kagera Basin. For the other two case-studies (Alentejo and AmuDarya) the formula merely represents what already could be observed from data in the truth table, in other words, no parsimony could be gained. When no, or only limited, parsimony can be gained it is useful to include logical remainders (see following paragraph). The analysis, explaining the ‘0’ outcomes (including logical remainders), is producing the following two (alternative) minimal formulas: [formula 2] Coop{0}
Output {0}
(Alentejo+Ukraine+AmuDarya+Kagera) Number of Simplifying Assumptions: 20 Translation of formula 2 into a verbal statement: “In the case-studies Alentejo, Ukrainian Tisza, AmuDarya and Kagera Basin, single loop learning is dominant when the condition cooperation structures shows a “0’’ value.” [formula 3] Inf{0,1}
Output {0}
(Alentejo+Ukraine+AmuDarya+Kagera) Number of Simplifying Assumptions: 22 Translation of formula 3 into a verbal statement: “In the case-studies Alentejo, Ukrainian Tisza, AmuDarya and Kagera Basin, single loop learning is dominant when the condition information management shows a “0’’ or “1” value.” By including logical remainders the boolean minimization produces two alternative formulas. Each one of them may tell a coherent story, and they will be used both for deriving conclusions. Intermediate conclusion: All case-studies with a relatively low score on cooperation structures or information management are characterized by single loop learning or ad-hoc problem solving (as being reflected in their strategies to deal with either floods or droughts). 88
The analysis, explaining the ‘1’ outcomes (without logical remainders), is producing the following minimal formula: [formula 4] Coop{2} * Pol{1} * Inf{2} * Fin{1} * Ris{1} +
Coop{1} * Pol{1} * Inf{2} * Fin{1} * Ris{1}
(Rivierenland)
(Ohre,Upper Vaal)
Output {1}
Translation of formula 4 into verbal statements: “In the case-study Rivierenland at least double loop learning occurs when the conditions cooperation structures and information management show a “2’’ value, and the conditions policy development, finances and cost recovery and risk management show a “1” value.” Or “In the case-studies Ohre Basin and Upper Vaal at least double loop learning occurs when the conditions cooperation structures, policy development, finances and cost recovery and risk management show a “1’’ value, and the condition information management shows a “1” value.” Again, not much parsimony can be gained by excluding the logical remainders (in formula 4). When no, or only limited, parsimony can be gained it is useful to include logical remainders (see following paragraph). The analysis, explaining the ‘1’ outcomes (including logical remainders), is producing the following two (alternative) minimal formulas: [formula 5] Coop{1,2}
Output {1}
(Rivierenland+Ohre,Upper Vaal) Number of Simplifying Assumptions: 23 Translation of formula 5 into a verbal statement: “In the case-studies Rivierenland, Ohre Basin, and Upper Vaal at least double loop learning occurs when the condition cooperation structures shows a “1” or “2’’ value.” [formula 6] Inf{2}
Output {1}
(Rivierenland+Ohre,Upper Vaal) Number of Simplifying Assumptions: 22 Translation of formula 6 into a verbal statement: 89
“In the case-studies Rivierenland, Ohre Basin, and Upper Vaal at least double loop learning occurs when the condition information management shows a “2’’ value.” 16
We have checked for the presence of possible contradictory simplifying assumptions and have established that no such contradictory simplifying assumptions are present when we “cross” minimal formulas numbers 2 & 3 with minimal formulas numbers 5 & 6. Therefore, we can proceed with the interpretation of the minimal formulas.
5.4
CONCLUSION
Based on the short minimal formula’s (formulas 3 & 4 and 5 & 6) we can conclude that everything boils down to 2 core factors: cooperation structures and information management. In other words, a relatively high score on cooperation structures or information management is a necessary and sufficient condition leading to at least double loop learning in Rivierenland, Ohre Basin, and Upper Vaal. All casestudies with a relatively low score on cooperation structures or information management are characterized by single loop learning or ad-hoc problem solving (as being reflected in their strategies to deal with either floods or droughts). As e.g. Folke et al. (2005) have pointed out, social learning is needed to build up experience for coping with uncertainty and change. They emphasize that “knowledge generation in itself is not sufficient for building adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems to meet the challenge of navigating nature’s dynamics” and conclude that “learning how to sustain social-ecological systems in a world of continuous change needs an institutional and social context within which to develop and act”. Knowledge and the ability to act upon new insights are continuously enacted in social processes. Our research presented in this paper provides strong empirical evidence that the social network of stakeholders is an invaluable asset for dealing with change. Moreover, above conclusions support our initial assumption that effective AIWM is able to facilitate a change in strategy, as being an adaptation to climate change. As such, there is a reciprocal relationship between AIWM and the development of adaptation strategies. Moreover, our assumption is confirmed that this relationship is reciprocal only in a situation of bottom-up governance, including real participation of non-governmental stakeholders, but also from different government sectors, lower levels of government, and downstream stakeholders. This bottom-up process is emerging from partnerships and networks (Geels et al., 2004). What is also important is that the conditions policy development and –implementation, finances and cost recovery, and risk management are not in the minimal formulas, and thus do not play the most central „causal“ role here. This observation could suggest further investigating whether these conditions may be considered as outcomes of an adaptation strategy. In that case it would support our assumption that the relationship between the management systems and its adaptation strategy is reciprocal, since the
16
Checking that some of the same logical remainders are not used both for the minimization of the {1} outcome configurations and for the minimization of the {0} outcome configurations, which would produce some contradictory assumptions regarding the outcome value of that logical remainder (Rihoux and Ragin, 2008: 182)
90
strategy itself is influencing the management system on its turn. This means that there could be many nonlinear feedback loops within the management regime itself, and the regime is in that sense creating its own enabling environment. Especially in regimes with a higher level of AIWM the formal institutional setting is being altered by the demand for governance as regards (new developments in) water related problems, such as the impacts of climate change. Examples include the Dutch National Water Agreement (Bestuursakkoord Water, 2002), leading towards the start of implementing the Room for Rivers-policy (PKB Ruimte voor de Rivier, 2006), and the Hungarian National Drought Strategy (2004). Nevertheless, the complex interdependency as described above is only addressed to a limited extent in this research, but is very important to be taken into account by future research activities. Especially for analyzing dynamic or transitional systems it is crucial to conduct longitudinal research.
91
PART III
COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ANALYSES OF DIFFERENT GOVERNANCE REGIMES AND INSTITUTIONAL DESIGNS – THE QUEST FOR GENERAL PATTERNS
93
94
CHAPTER 6 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REGIME CHARACTERISTICS AND PHYSICAL INTERVENTIONS IN A RIVER BASIN 17
Public document
By Patrick Huntjens, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, John Grin
Abstract This chapter presents an assessment and standardized comparative analysis of the current water management regimes in four case studies in three European river basins: the Hungarian part of the Upper Tisza, the Ukrainian part of the Upper Tisza (also called Zacarpathian Tisza), Alentejo Region (including the Alqueva Reservoir) in the Lower Guadiana in Portugal, and Rivierenland in the Netherlands. The analysis comprises several regime elements considered to be important in adaptive and integrated water management: agency, awareness raising and education, type of governance and cooperation structures, information management and –exchange, policy development and –implementation, risk management, and finances and cost recovery. This comparative analysis has an explorative character intended to identify general patterns in adaptive and integrated water management, and to determine its role in coping with the impacts of climate change on floods and droughts. The results show that there is a strong interdependence of the elements within a water management regime, and as such this interdependence is a stabilizing factor in current management regimes. For example, this research provides evidence that a lack of joint/participative knowledge is an important obstacle for cooperation, or vice versa. We argue that there is a two way relationship between information management and collaboration. Moreover, this research suggests that bottom-up governance is not a straight forward solution to water management problems in large-scale, complex, multiple-use systems, such as river basins. Instead, all the regimes being analyzed are in a process of finding a balance between bottom-up and top-down governance. Finally, this research shows that in a basin where one type of extreme is dominant – like droughts in the Alentejo (Portugal) and floods in Rivierenland (Netherlands) - the potential impacts of other extremes are somehow ignored or not perceived with the urgency they might deserve. Key words: standardized comparative analysis, adaptive and integrated water management (AIWM), water management regime, river basin management, climate change adaptation, floods, droughts, Hungary, Portugal, Netherlands, Ukraine.
17
This chapter has been published as: Huntjens, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., Grin, J. (2010) Climate change adaptation in European River Basins. In: Regional Environmental Change, http://www.springerlink.com/content/vl408t6016j53022/
95
6.1
INTRODUCTION
The challenges posed by climate-related extreme events to river basins are manifold, especially since water resource issues interact with a wide range of environmental and socio-economic sectors including health, public safety, agriculture, biodiversity, industry, navigation, and tourism. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) an increase in the surface temperature of water, and changes in the hydrological cycle could result in changing rainfall patterns. Some areas may experience intense rainfall resulting in heavy floods, while other areas may witness less rainfall, and also frequent droughts. On a global scale the number of disasters caused by weather-related phenomena such as storms, floods and droughts has more than doubled over the past decade, from 175 in 1996 to 391 in 2005 (IFRC 2007). The same trend (Figure 6.1) is being observed in the case-studies under investigation, which is Rivierenland in the Netherlands, the Alentejo region (including the Alqueva reservoir) of the lower Guadiana River Basin in Portugal, the Hungarian part of the Upper Tisza and the Ukrainian part of the Upper Tisza (also called the Zacarpathian Tisza).
Number of flood and drought disasters in the past decades per case study Total number of flood and drought disasters
12 10 Rivierenland
8
Alentejo 6
Upper Tisza - Hungary
4
Upper Tisza - Ukraine
2 0 1977-1986
1987-1996
1997-2006
Time period
Figure 6.1 – Number of reported flood and drought disasters in the past decades in Rivierenland, Alentejo, Hungarian part of Upper Tisza, and Ukrainian part of Upper Tisza. Based on data from EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, 2008
Comparing data for the past decade (1997–2006) with data for the previous decade (1987–1996), the 18 number of reported flood and drought disasters has increased (see figure 6.1). Over the same period,
18
For a disaster to be entered into the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) at least one of the following criteria must be fulfilled: 1) Ten or more people reported killed; 2) Hundred people reported affected; 3) Declaration of a state of emergency; 4) Call for international assistance (From: EM-DAT 2008)
96
19
the average total number of people reported affected per decade rose by 1200 per cent, from 20 approximately 38 thousand to 480 thousand. Meanwhile, the total cost of reported damage doubled, from US$ 1.2 billion to US$ 2.4 billion (2006 prices), although this could partially be explained by a higher density or vulnerability of infrastructure and areas being used by humans. Moreover, more detailed documentation of smaller disasters partially explains the above mentioned increases. It shows nevertheless that flood and drought problems become more visible and cannot be ignored. Especially since climate-change models project more frequent and intense summer droughts across many parts of Europe, particularly in the southern part (Goodess et al. 2007; Fowler et al. 2007). This may be further exacerbated because of an increasing demand for water as a result of elevated temperatures. The increasing frequency and intensity of floods and droughts is also being confirmed by the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, Fourth Assessment Report 2007), which argues that "there are multiple lines of evidence that climate change is happening now, and the impacts are being seen now". Given the expected increase of climate related extreme events, water management capabilities in the case-studies, and on a global scale, will be tested to their limits by the effects of climate change. This requires innovative and adaptive ways of managing water, which can be referred to as “Adaptive and Integrated Water Management” (AIWM). This paper addresses the role of AIWM in coping with the impacts of climate change on floods and droughts in four case-studies in three European river basins. The explorative character of this paper intends to identify general patterns in the characteristics of AIWM and assumes that regimes with a higher level of AIWM consider and implement more advanced and a more diverse set of structural and nonstructural measures. The selected case-studies are all confronted with floods and droughts. Even the most drought-prone casestudy, the Alentejo Region in Portugal, was confronted with serious flooding events (notably in 1997 and 2006). Next to this similarity of being confronted with floods and droughts, the management regimes in all four case-studies are subject to a similar institutional setting on the European level (e.g. Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC), Common Agricultural Policy, etcetera), except for the Ukrainian part of the Tisza. However, the Ukraine shows strong incentives to enter the EU community and thus the EU acquis communautaire is used as key reference for the development of its water management principles. It was nevertheless decided to select two case-studies in the Tisza Basin, because the international Tisza river basin is situated at the current borderline of the EU (e.g. Hungary and Ukraine) and thus the national and regional water management might follow different frameworks for the one river. 21
Despite the above mentioned similarities between the case-studies, it is expected that there are (substantial) differences between the water management regimes of these case-studies, more specifically
19
Total number of people affected: Sum of injured, homeless, and affected; Affected: People requiring immediate assistance during a period of emergency; it can also include displaced or evacuated people (From: EM-DAT 2008) 20
Estimated Damage: Several institutions have developed methodologies to quantify these losses in their specific domain. However, there is no standard procedure to determine a global figure for economic impact (From: EM-DAT 2008) 21
Based on baseline assessments of the case-studies in the NeWater-project (www.newater.info)
97
22
in their level of AIWM. Therefore, this paper intends to identify differences and similarities in AIWM, to detect general patterns, and to compare measures being taken to cope with floods and droughts. The characteristics of AIWM (see next section) are to be regarded as working hypotheses, since the change towards more adaptive management regimes is yet slow and empirical data and practical experience thus limited – in particular regarding the interdependence of elements of the management regime. The strong interdependence of the factors stabilizing current management regimes is also one possible reason for this lack of innovation. One cannot, for example, move easily from top-down to participatory management practices without changing the whole approach to information and risk management. Hence, research is urgently needed to better understand the interdependence of key elements of water management regimes and the dynamics of transition processes in order to be able to compare and evaluate alternative management regimes and to implement and support transition processes if required. This article also addresses the question whether a higher level of AIWM is showing a different response in coping with floods and droughts than case-studies with a lower level of AIWM. This will be done by looking at their adaptation strategies and their planned or implemented physical interventions in the river basin. This paper is focusing on conditions and processes in the management of a specific part of the river basin at sub national level (e.g. water boards), but being embedded in a wider context (e.g. institutional setting at different levels). The sub national level is conceived as the level where all elements of a water management regime are at play. At the same time this level is influencing, or is being influenced by, higher and lower levels. This central position also allows for assessing the outcomes of a water management regime at the operational level, since the management on the sub-basin level (e.g. water board or regional water authority) is influenced by international or national regulation, while implementing at the operational/local level. A calibrated approach (standardized questionnaires and interviews, expert judgment and reinterpretation of outcomes by means of relevant literature) was used to compare the state of affairs in water management in the selected case-studies.
ADAPTIVE AND INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT Given the expected increase of climate related extreme events, water governance capabilities in the casestudies, and on a global scale, will be tested to their limits by the effects of climate change. This requires innovative and adaptive ways of managing water, which can be referred to as “Adaptive and Integrated Water Management” (AIWM). To deal with existing and new complexities water resources management must be able to respond to changes in the natural and social environment and to anticipate associated uncertainties (Folke et al.
22
For historical developments and institutional settings of the specific case-studies more information can be found in Huntjens (2007), Chapter 4 of NeWater Deliverable 1.7.9a (www.newater.info)
98
2005; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007). Adaptation to climate change and management of related risks should therefore be built into water resources management plans and programmes. Adaptive and integrated management is considered to be an appropriate approach for doing so. Adaptive and integrated management can be defined as a structured process for improving systemic management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of implemented management strategies (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007a). By re-evaluating goals, objectives and means how to achieve them as new information and insights become available, adaptive management is more responsive to changing conditions of and demands on ecosystems as compared to traditional approaches to water resource management. AIWM requires different capabilities than traditional forms of water management, particularly when it comes to creating forms of collaboration between water managers and stakeholders, the relation between science and policy, the importance of participatory learning processes, dealing with uncertainty, and assessing a wide variety of possible measures and future scenario’s. It requires many instances of social learning to implement and sustain innovative management approaches (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007). Folke et al. (2005) already pointed out that social learning is needed to build up experience for coping with uncertainty and change. They emphasize that “knowledge generation in itself is not sufficient for building adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems to meet the challenge of navigating nature’s dynamics” and conclude that “learning how to sustain social-ecological systems in a world of continuous change needs an institutional and social context within which to develop and act”. Knowledge and the ability to act upon new insights are continuously enacted in social processes. The social network of stakeholders is an invaluable asset for dealing with change. These considerations highlight that one important element of adaptive water management is the governance structure. Adaptive governance can be understood as the synthesis of collaborative management and adaptive management (Wailand 2006). It can be defined as the totality of interactions, by private and public actors, to achieve adaptation and to enhance the capacity of processes, institutional arrangements and actors to adapt to future environmental changes (Huitema et al. 2009). Adaptive governance depends on adaptive institutions (Pahl-Wostl 2002) that are able to cope with complexity and uncertainty and to face new challenges such as climate change. However, in technology dominated water management practice, design and structure of governance regimes has not played a prominent role. Adaptive and integrated water resources management implies a real paradigm shift in water management from what can be described as a prediction and control to a management as learning approach. Such change aims at increasing the adaptive capacity of river basins at different scales and implies a change in the whole water management regime (Pahl-Wostl 2007). Some structural requirements for a water management regime to be adaptive are summarized in table 6.1. Two different regimes characterized by two different management paradigms – management as control versus management as learning - are contrasted as the extreme, opposing ends of six axes.
99
Table 6.1: Different regimes and their characteristics (From: Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007a)
6.2 INTERDEPENDENCE OF THE REGIME CHARACTERISTICS AND RESPONSIVENESS TO FLOODS AND DROUGHTS The key objective of our research is to see whether there is a link between regime characteristics and responsiveness to floods and droughts (as an output of the regime at play). For this purpose we needed to develop two different and independent analytical frameworks:
A framework for assessing the characteristics of a water management regime A framework for assessing responsiveness to floods and droughts
In the next sections we will provide the conceptual background for both frameworks and related development of variables and indicators.
A FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A WATER MANAGEMENT REGIME For this purpose we first needed to develop a normative framework of how an adaptive and integrated management regime looks like, in order to develop indicators for assessing the regime characteristics. For this normative framework we have used the working hypotheses on the characteristics of AIWM being presented in table 6.1. These working hypotheses have been further developed into a methodology for evaluating the level of Adaptive and Integrated Water Management, which resulted in an analytical framework for assessing regime characteristics, consisting of nine different dimensions of variables:
1. 2.
Agency Awareness Raising & Education 100
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Type of governance Cooperation structures Policy development & implementation Information management & sharing Finances and cost recovery Risk management Effectiveness of (international) regulation
As a useful starting point for operationalization we considered the River Basin Assessment framework developed by Raadgever et al. (2008). Raadgever et al. developed a framework including four regime elements (4-7). Based on relevant literature (see endnotes in table 3.1, chapter 3) we have added the dimensions agency, governance, awareness raising and education, risk management, and effectiveness of (international) regulation to the four regime elements that Raadgever et al. (idem) used to describe a management regime in their article. Furthermore, we have developed variables and indicators for the added dimensions and adjusted some of the variables and indicators in the framework of Raadgever et al. (2008). By doing so, we have further developed the methodology for assessing and comparing governance regimes. The operationalisation resulted in 33 variables; comprising 62 indicators (see table 3.1, chapter 3, including related literature). In addition to the framework of Raadgever et al. (2008) we have provided a more detailed explanation and related literature for each indicator in order to prevent ambiguity in the interpretation of indicators. The current large number of variables is inherent to the explorative character of this research, but also to the nature of complex (governance) systems. Hence, one cannot simply omit variables without eroding the comprehensiveness of our analysis of complex governance systems. In other words, with our current number of variables we consciously intended to reduce the risk of glossing over potential key variables, especially since the empirical base for AIWM is yet rather weak, and we cannot a priori justify which variables should be in or out.
A FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING RESPONSIVENESS TO FLOODS AND DROUGHTS A second analytical framework, independent from the first one, has been developed for assessing the responsiveness to floods and droughts in river basins, being defined as physical adaptation measures within the context of flood protection and drought/low flow protection. The type of measures listed in this framework (see table 6.4 and 6.5) are drawn from two different reports. The first one is a report of the European Environment Agency called 'Climate change and water adaptation issues' (EEA Technical Report No 2/2007), the second report is called the ‘Bouwstenen Nota’ (RIZA 2002), which is a study describing all potential flood protection measures in Dutch Rivers. The current status of physical interventions in each case-study has been assessed by means of expert judgment (see methodology in the next section). In principle, the measures themselves might have been implemented very recently or decades ago. Moreover, it should be taken into account that these management regimes may be currently evolving as a response to climate-related extreme events. In other words, even when a new management regime has been established it may not have achieved its projected outcomes yet. For this reason the responsiveness of the management systems in the case-studies to extreme events as presented here should be viewed as a snapshot, especially since there normally is a time lag between policy development and implementation 101
of measures. This time lag has been taken into account in this research by asking experts to indicate whether measures are 1) already implemented (= physically present), 2) being planned, or 3) necessary, but not being planned (yet). Nevertheless, the results presented in this research are not able to indicate: a) whether the implemented measures are working properly or whether their quality and scale is sufficient to deal with the problems they are designed for; b) if, how and when the planned measures will be really implemented and whether there will be complications during implementation (e.g. delays, insufficient funds, objection by citizen groups, etc), and c) measures which are necessary, but haven’t been planned yet, could be planned after all in the nearby future. Hence, it is important to monitor the responsiveness of the management regimes in these case-studies for a longer period and on a frequent basis. Apart from the physical intervention in the water system a regime’s performance could and should also be measured by its management interventions, such as awareness campaigns, measures for improving information management and exchange, cooperation structures, insurance mechanisms, etcetera. The assessment of management interventions is beyond the scope of this chapter, but has been taken into account in chapter 7.
6.3
METHODOLOGY
A calibrated approach using a standardized questionnaire for the elements of AIWM, and a questionnaire for physical interventions in the river basin (see table 6.4 and 6.5), expert judgment for both questionnaires, and reinterpretation of outcomes by means of relevant literature was used to compare the water management regimes in the selected case-studies. By combining in-depth case studies with more extensive and formal comparative analysis we can to some extent use the strengths of one method to compensate for limitations inherent in the other. This explorative research has taken the research problem, rather than a favorite methodology, to determine the research approach, and both the quantitative and qualitative aspects have been and can be used in a consonant manner (Leon 1998). As such it is possible to combine the qualities of the case-oriented approach with the qualities of the variable-oriented approach (Berg-Schlosser et al. 2008). In this research, expert judgment has been used as method for knowledge elicitation on regime elements and internal processes. The list of potential respondents for each case-study was developed in cooperation with the case-study teams of NeWater, with the objective of selecting a group of respondents with enough knowledge on the case-study under consideration, and the ability to answer the whole questionnaire, or at least a major part of it. Moreover, with the objective of including all relevant perspectives and experiences in the case-study the respondents group was selected as a reflection of the most important stakeholders, policymakers, water practitioners, involved scientists, private sector and civil society. This resulted in a consultation round involving a minimum of ten experts in each case-study, reflecting perspectives from different stakeholder groups (see figure 6.3). A complete list of respondents has been provided in Huntjens et al. (2007; updated 2009).
102
2 6 4 6
4 3 3 2
Total no. of experts
4 3 3 2
Non-Government
Government
Academia
Case-studies Lower Guadiana - Alentejo, Portugal Ukrainian part of Upper Tisza Hungarian part of Upper Tisza Lower Rhine - Rivierenland, Netherlands
10 12 10 10
Figure 6.3 – Overview of the number of experts (per stakeholder group) consulted in each case-study
By using standardized questionnaires, or using these questionnaires for standardized interviews, qualitative data was being collected in such a way that it was possible to compare weighted averages on each separate indicator. The weighted average has been calculated by multiplying each individual score by the weight which respondents assigned to it; the total sum of all respondents in one case-study was then divided by the total assigned weight (by adding up all weights assigned to this specific indicator). Furthermore, the level of inconsistency (standard deviation) for each variable has been calculated, next to 23 ‘Independent Samples T Tests’, in order to test for significant differences between the case-studies. The reason for developing standardized answering options in the questionnaire is that it supports a formal comparative analysis of the results. Furthermore, the questionnaire allows for assigning weights to each indicator. In this way it is possible to aggregate multiple indicators, resulting in a score for one variable, or 24 for aggregated variables, resulting in a score for one meta-variable (e.g. dimension of variables). Not much work is available on comparative analyses of river basins including full range of a water management regime’s complexity (Myint 2005; Wolf 1997). Many studies on IWRM are descriptive and limited to recording success or failure of single cases. The initial comparisons in this research will help develop and test protocols (cf. Breitmeier et al. 1996) that open the way for efforts at broader generalizations about options for institutional designs and procedures with a special emphasis on assessing what does and doesn’t work well with respect to adaptive and integrated water management.
6.4
RESULTS
Based on our formal comparative analyses of the water management regimes in the four case studies it is possible to identify general patterns in the dimensions of AIWM. It is important to acknowledge that management regimes with the majority of variables having a weighted average closely to 2 are considered regimes that follow a pattern of configuration more closely related to AIWM. Additionally, we assume that a necessary prerequisite for being adaptive is a high degree of integration (Pahl-Wostl & Sendzimir
23
24
More details on statistical analyses can be found in Huntjens, et al. (2007, updated 2009) More details can be found in Huntjens, et al. (2007, updated 2009) 103
2005). Our results show that the case of Rivierenland appears to be the most closely related to AIWM (see figure 6.4). Moreover, the empirical results clearly show that the dimensions of AIWM are interdependent, meaning that when variables show high averages in one dimension the variables in other dimensions of the respective case-study equally show high averages. On the other hand, when variables in one dimension show low averages the variables in other dimensions also show low averages. This interdependency is especially evident between variables in information management, cooperation structures, and conflict resolution (see table 6.3), but also a number of indicators in other variables such as in risk management and policy development and implementation. Within these dimensions the 25 following very significant correlations (P ≥ 0.95) stand out: -
Information management (in particular joint/participative information production, consideration of uncertainties, and broad communication) shows very significant positive correlations (P ≥ 0.95) with cooperation structures (in particular vertical cooperation, vertical conflict resolution and transboundary cooperation).
-
Risk perceptions (in particular participative risk perceptions and participatory decision-making on what are acceptable risks) shows very significant positive correlations (P ≥ 0.95) with information management (all variables), and with cooperation structures (in particular vertical cooperation, vertical conflict resolution and transboundary cooperation).
-
Consideration of possible measures shows very significant positive correlations (P ≥ 0.95) with bottom-up governance, stakeholder participation, implementation of policies, participative risk perceptions, and adaptive leadership.
25
A complete overview of correlation coefficients has been provided in Huntjens et al. (2007, updated 2009)
104
Rivierenland Alentejo Tisza Ukraine
E
du ca tio n
Ty pe
& ra is in g ar en es s Aw
of G ov er C na o Po op nc l ic er e at y de io n ve s lo tru pm ct ur en es t& im pl em In fo en rm ta at tio io n n M Fi an na nc ag e em an en d t C os tR ec ov er Ef R y fe is k ct M iv en an es ag s em In en te rn t at .R eg ul at io n
Tisza Hungary
Ag en cy
Weighted average
Weighted averages 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
Figure 6.4 – Level of Adaptive and Integrated Water Management in coping with climate-related extreme events in the four case-studies (0 = non-adaptive and non-integrated, 2 = adaptive and integrated). From: Huntjens, et al. (2007)
Above results reveal many positive correlations between variables from different regime elements. This suggests a strong interdependence of the elements within a water management regime, and as such this interdependence is a stabilizing factor in current management regimes. For example, based on the very significant positive correlations between joint/participative information production, and vertical cooperation, transboundary cooperation, consideration of uncertainties, and broad communication we can conclude that a lack of joint participative knowledge production is an important obstacle for vertical cooperation and conflict resolution, or vice versa. Cooperation and joint/participative knowledge production is even more important when dealing with uncertainty and change. Several authors (Olsson et al. 2006; Stubbs and Lemon 2001; Loeber et al. 2007) argue that linking different networks and creating opportunities for new interactions are critical factors for learning and nurturing integrated adaptive responses to change. Therefore, mechanisms which facilitate social learning, such as co-production (e.g. joint/participative knowledge production) and multiple stakeholder platforms are therefore being suggested as an important design principle for river basin management at different scales (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007b). Such an institutional design principle would be an addition to the design principles developed by Elinor Ostrom (1990), which are based on long enduring local and single-use common pool resource communities. In contrast, river basins are open resources systems on a larger scale, with a complex constellation of multiple-uses, meaning that additional, or perhaps different, design principles might be relevant.
105
An important hypothesis in the concept of social learning is that information management and social (cooperation) structures are interlinked (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007a), which corresponds to the sociocognitive theory of information systems (Hemmingway 1998). Hemmingway pays attention to the impacts of presented information on learning and action, and the centrality of the selection and organization of information to the nature of organizational forms. Our research confirms that information management and social (cooperation) structures are interlinked in the management regimes under consideration. This interdependency can be described as the socio-cognitive dimension of water management regimes. We define the socio-cognitive dimension as the integrated cognitive and social properties of complex systems and related processes. These (informal or formal) learning environments are an emergent property of the interlinkage between information management and social cooperation structures, and are perceived to be crucial for the adaptive governance of socio-ecological systems (see also Folke et al. 2005; Pahl-Wostl 2005). The above mentioned positive correlations provide evidence that there is a strong interdependence of the elements within a water management regime. Such interdependences may constitute stabilization of currently evolving water management regimes towards AIWM regimes. One cannot, for example, move easily from top-down to participatory management practices without changing the whole approach to information management, policy development, risk management, cooperation structures and styles of leadership. Additional limiting factors for moving towards adaptive and integrated water management regimes is a lack of funding and capacity in current water management regimes. Lack of capacity refers to a lack of adaptive leadership, limited number of water professionals who are familiar with AIWM approaches, and limited public participation and stakeholder participation.
106
Table 6.3 - Overview of the results (weighted averages) of expert judgement on each indicator in the regime dimensions Type of Governance, Cooperation Structures and Information Management (From: Huntjens, et al. 2007). The table shows regime dimensions that follow a pattern of configuration more closely related to AIWM (e.g. Rivierenland), or less related to AIWM (e.g. Alentejo). ‘0’ indicates a condition belonging to a non-adaptive and nonintegrated regime; and ‘2’ a condition belonging to an adaptive and integrated regime. Note: The scores show weighted averages and could hide a range of different scorings and interpretations by individuals in each case-study.
107
FINDING A BALANCE BETWEEN BOTTOM-UP AND TOP-DOWN GOVERNANCE IN RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT The weighted averages on governance suggest that bottom-up governance plays not such a primary role in AIWM as earlier suggested. For example, the weighted average on governance in Rivierenland (see table 6.4) indicates that there is much more top-down governance than could be expected from consensus-based decision-making, particularly since the Netherlands is well-known for its consensusbased decision-making (also called the ‘Poldermodel’). The fact that Rivierenland also shows a substantial degree of top-down governance is reflected in the framework for flood management (PKB Room for Rivers) in the Netherlands, which was initiated by the national government (Berenschot 2007). Nevertheless, after initiation by the national government the framework was being further developed, and this process was much more characterized by bottom-up governance (Berenschot 2007). This bottom-up process was, amongst others, reflected in the document called “Advice to the parliament as regard the PKB Room for Rivers by nine civil society organizations” (LIRR 2003). In July 2006 the Directorate-General Water in the Netherlands published a policy document (Waterkoers 2), which refers to transitions and five paradigm shifts, which it considers to be important for future water management. This report concludes that ‘public and civil society are still not adequately mobilised, despite substantial investments’. In other words, a balance between bottom-up governance and top-down governance has not been found yet, if such a balance is to be found at all. It should be emphasized that even where bottom-up governance is a useful tool, it may be usefully supplemented by the state. For example, decentralization does not exclude public control, since public and governmental authority can also be located at lower levels – e.g. independent provinces. Carruthers and Stoner (1981) even argued that ‘common property resources require public control if economic efficiency is to result from their development’, and they concluded that public control is needed to avoid overexploitation of resources. On the other hand, Elinor Ostrom (1990) argues that centralized control is based on assumptions concerning the accuracy of information, monitoring capabilities, sanctioning reliability, and zero costs of administration. Without valid and reliable information, a central agency could make several errors, including setting the carrying capacity or the fine too high or too low, sanctioning water users who cooperate, or not sanctioning defectors. Acknowledging both sides of the coin, Scharpf has pointed out the importance of “bargaining in the shadow of hierarchy” (Scharpf 1997). A variety of empirical studies exemplify this claim. For instance, Bardhan (2002) has found that the state can promote bottom-up, consensual decision making by playing an active role in the mobilization of people in local processes, it can aid in neutralizing local oligarchs, can provide funds for local initiatives, provide technical and professional services to help local capacity building, guarantee quality standards, invest in larger infrastructure and coordinate in externalities that span more that one local government. Healey et al. (2003) demonstrate that collaborative decisionmaking may be promoted by strong, strategically operating (local) governments. In a case study of a practice in the area of sustainable agriculture, Hendriks & Grin (2007) have found that “Parliament may have been inactive, but it was certainly not insignificant.” It neither intervened, nor did it much to implement the recommendations, but still was important as ”it provided the locus around which much discursive activity was centred, and this helped to legitimate the project.”
108
In summary, for large-scale, complex multiple-use systems, such as river basins, this research suggests that bottom-up governance and decentralization is not a straight forward solution to water management problems. There will probably always be the need for a certain degree of top-down governance (or centralization), where a central authority has the responsibility and resources for issues like facilitation of participatory processes, setting of standards, capacity building, conflict resolution and cooperation across boundaries. All the case-studies in this research seem to be in a process of finding a balance between bottom-up and top-down governance.
RESPONSIVENESS TO EXTREME DROUGHTS AND LOW FLOW PROBLEMS Next to comparing the level of AIWM, and identifying general patterns in the characteristics of AIWM, it is important to compare whether there are differences between the management regimes as regards measures being taken to cope with floods and droughts. After all, a higher level of AIWM is expected to result in more advanced adaptation strategies and measures to cope with (the threat of) floods and droughts. This research has labeled this outcome of a water management regime as the responsiveness to flood and drought problems. The responsiveness of the management regimes to severe drought events in the recent years is very limited in all case-studies (see table 6.4). This lack of an adequate response in all case-studies is noteworthy, since droughts have already caused enormous adverse social, economic and environmental effects in recent years (Della-Marta et al. 2007: 252; EM-DAT 2008), and it is expected that this will become even worse due to climate change (IPCC, 2007). Climate-change models project more frequent and intense summer droughts across many parts of Europe, particularly in the southern part (Goodess et al. 2007; EEA 2005). This may be further exacerbated because of an increasing demand for water as a result of elevated temperatures (EEA 2005). This research shows that the management regime confronted with the most severe water scarcity - the Alentejo case-study - is showing a poor response, at least in terms of diversity in measures, as compared to other case-studies. Despite the fact that the Alentejo region has been confronted with drought events for many decades, out of the twelve possible measures in table 6.4 only two measures for dealing with droughts have been implemented up until today: 1) increasing reservoir volumes (e.g. Alqueva Reservoir) and 2) crop rotation. The Alqueva Reservoir is an extensive multipurpose project that aims at a social and economic development of the Alentejo region in the south of Portugal, by means of setting up a strategic water reserve and providing a guarantee of water supply for irrigation (110.000 ha), population and industry (EDIA 2008).
109
Table 6.4 – Overview of expert judgment on physical interventions as regards drought and low flow protection or mitigation measures in each case-study. Please note that for one specific measure different answers may be included, which reflects different opinions amongst experts. Drought/low flow protection Technical measures Increase Reservoir to increase supply volumes
Water transfers
Desalinization
Rivierenland (Netherlands)
Alentejo (Portugal)
Ukrainian part of Upper Tisza
Hungarian part of Upper Tisza
Plan for regional system Necessary, but no plans Plan for regional system Necessary, but no plans Not relevant
Implemented
Planned
Planned
Securing minimum flows Planned at certain in dry periods subsystems Necessary, but no plans Increasing efficiency Leakage reduction Planned for regional of water use system Necessary, but no plans Necessary, but no plans More efficient irrigation Not relevant
Necessary, but no plans Planned Planned
Necessary, but no Not relevant plans Planned
Use of grey water
Planned Necessary, but no plans High resilient crop seeds Not relevant
Planned
Necessary, but no plans Planned Necessary, but no plans Not relevant
Necessary, but no plans
Necessary, but no plans
Necessary, but no plans
Implemented & Planned Necessary, but no plans
Necessary, but no plans Necessary, but no plans
Necessary, but no plans Implemented & Planned26 Necessary, but no plans Necessary, but no plans27
Restriction of water uses
Necessary, but no Necessary, but no plans plans
Crop adaptations
Planned
4 7 7 1
Crop rotation (for soil recovery) Crop choice (crops with more efficient water use) Landscape planning measures to improve water balance (e.g. change of land use, reforestation, reduced sealing of areas)
Not relevant
Necessary, but not planned
Necessary, but no Necessary, but no plans plans Implemented Necessary, but no plans Necessary, but no Necessary, but no plans plans Necessary, but no Necessary, but no plans plans
Total
0 5 7 6
2 3 6 0
26
27
Implemented Planned Necessary, but not planned yet Not necessary / relevant
Not relevant
0 2 9 1
Implemented Implemented & Planned Planned
But very limited Except for Budapest and other major cities in Hungary
110
Besides crop rotation and the large-scale Alqueva reservoir, only three additional measures have been planned in the Alentejo region (water transfers, securing minimum flows and more efficient irrigation), while six measures are being mentioned as necessary, but for which no plans have been developed. Experts in the Alentejo region indicate that much faith has been put in the water transfers of the EMFA28 project , a project seen as a solution to all water shortages. However, these water transfers are expected to lead to serious negative environmental impacts, and even to violations of the EU Habitat Directive (Platform for Sustainable Alentejo, 2005). In summary, large-scale infrastructure is not seen as a problem in the Alqueva case-study, and as such there is also no sign of a “paradigm shift” as regards the implementation of more small-scale and non-structural measures. Extensive studies in the Netherlands (Droogtestudie 2005, update 2008) indicate that droughts and heat waves are becoming a serious problem for many sectors, such as water transport, agriculture and nature. Even though the problem is recognized, the political climate in the Netherlands is not ready for a policy change with regard to extreme droughts and heat waves. This political climate is represented in the Dutch National Safety Reports (Ministry of Domestic Affairs, sub-report on extreme droughts and heat waves, 2006), which concludes that the situation with respect to mitigation and prevention of extreme droughts and heat waves is not as urgent as compared to other natural threats, such as pandemics (e.g. mouth and foot disease) and the threat of floods. Even though Dutch society had clear warning signals before, regarding the impacts of extreme droughts, it wasn’t enough to put drought problems high on the public or political agenda. These clear warning signals included for example the fact that agricultural production in the Netherlands is reduced by 5 to 35 % because of water shortages (National Safety Reports, Ministry of Domestic Affairs, Netherlands, 2006). This means an average economical damage of 180 million Euros/year, and even 1800 million Euros/year in extreme years (idem). Damage to the Dutch water transport sector goes up to 800 million Euros in extreme years (Droogtestudie 2005). During severe droughts in the Netherlands in the summer of 2005 the Dutch Government desperately launched a national ad-hoc campaign to urge people to use less drinking water and less electricity. Simply because there wasn’t enough water for public and agricultural water supply, and water temperatures were too high for abstracting cooling water from the rivers, which is necessary for electricity production. Nevertheless, in Rivierenland the response to current and expected drought problems is poor. Experts in Rivierenland have indicated that seven measures are necessary or effective for dealing with droughts, but none of them have been implemented so far. Only for a few subsystems there are plans for increasing reservoir volumes, water transfers, securing minimum flows in dry periods, leakage reduction and restriction of water uses, but none of these plans have been implemented yet. Based on the conclusions of the Dutch National Safety Reports (2006), but also based on expert judgment in this research, it is justified to conclude that the political climate does not make the time right for change. Kingdon (1995) stresses the importance of timing for initiating policy changes and opening “policy windows”. He argues that significant changes are most likely when three independently operating “streams,” i.e., problems, solutions, and politics, come together at critical times. In other words, even though the problem of extreme droughts in the Netherlands is being recognized to some extent (Droogtestudie 2005, update 2008), there is no window of opportunity to initiate new policy measures,
28
Empreendimento de Fins Múltiplos de Alqueva (EFMA): a plan for multiple uses of the Alqueva reservoir), a project which has been partially financed by the European Investment Bank (EIB) with loans totalling EUR 135 million
111
since this would require, in addition to recognition of the problem, that “a solution is available, and the political climate makes the time right for change, and the constraints do not prohibit actions” (Kingdon 1995). As regard the Upper Tisza, agriculture and forestry have suffered from extensive droughts in successive years. However, the implemented and planned measures for drought and low flow protection are rather limited so far. The extreme drought events have at least initiated the development of the Hungarian Drought Strategy (2004), with support of UNCCD, although an integrated strategy at national level is not yet available (Pers. Comm. Dr. Z. Flachner, Hungarian Academy of Sciences). The present version of the national drought strategy (to be approved yet) states that drought can affect the whole of society and requires a systematic approach to mitigate its consequences. It envisages the establishment of a National Drought Committee and a Drought Fund (EEA 2006). In the Zacarpathian Tisza there is no literature and data available on the frequency and intensity of droughts and heat waves. If there would be a problem with severe drought events in this case-study we can at least conclude that this problem is not being recognized up until today, or that the problem is not that severe in this case-study as compared to other case-studies. Nevertheless, the experts in this casestudy indicate that nine (9) measures for drought and low flow protection are necessary, but none of them has been planned yet. As such we can conclude that this case-study is confronted with drought and low flow problems, but that the responsiveness of the management regime is almost zero.
RESPONSIVENESS TO (THE RISK OF) FLOODS In contradiction to the poor response to drought and low flow problems, all management regimes, except in the Alentejo region, seem to be more effective in terms of flood protection measures (see table 6.5). In the Alentejo region, respondents indicate that flood problems (and flood protection) is not an issue, although it was confronted with serious flooding events (notably in 1997 and 2006). Rivierenland shows the most advanced policy development and implementation regarding flood protection, although this policy was mainly the result of (the threat of) floods in 1993 and 1995. As such its policy is a response due to extreme events in the past. These extreme events created political momentum for developing new flood protection policy, including climate change (scenarios) and structural and non-structural measures for flood protection. Also in both Tisza case-studies recent floods have increased political momentum for planning new flood protection measures, although this has started a decade later, mainly due to the floods of 2005. The revised State Program for Flood Protection in the Ukraine has been planning new flood protection measures in the period 2002-2010, and after re-assessment of what is effective (which allows at the same time for reallocation of resources) there will be a new implementation plan for the period 2010-2015.
112
Table 6.5 – Overview of expert judgment on physical intervention as regards flood protection and mitigation measures in each case-study. Please note that for one specific measure different answers could be included, which reflects different opinions amongst experts. Flood protection Technical flood Raise dykes protection
Rivierenland (Netherlands) Implemented
Planned (2015 > 60 km) Necessary, but not planned yet (horizon 2050/2100) Planned (2015 > 6 km) Replacement of dykes to Necessary, but not enlarge river bed planned yet (horizon capacity 2050/2100) Enlarge reservoirs Retention/ inundation areas to reduce flood run-off) Upgrade drainage systems
Not necessary
Alqueva (Portugal) Not necessary
Not necessary
Necessary, but no plans
Planned (2015: 3 in regional system) Necessary, but no plans Necessary, but (horizon 2050/2100) no plans Implemented & Planned Planned
River bypasses = ‘green Planned rivers’ when no peak Necessary, but no plans discharge (horizon 2050/2100) Implemented Deepening of summer Planned bed Necessary, but not planned Not relevant
Not necessary
Planned
29
Not necessary
Upper Tisza (N-Hungary) Implemented Planned Necessary, but no plans
Implemented29 Planned Necessary, but no plans Planned
Planned Necessary, but no plans Work in progress
Implemented30
Work in progress
Planned31
Necessary, but no plans Planned Necessary, but no plans Necessary, but no plans
Implemented & Planned32 Necessary, but no plans
Not necessary
Reforestation areas to reduce flood run-off Adjustment or removal Implemented of hydraulic obstacles in Planned
Zacarpathian Tisza (Ukraine) Implemented (after floods 1999, 2001) Planned
Planned Necessary, but no plans Implemented34
Not necessary33
Planned Necessary, but no plans
Planned Necessary, but no plans Planned
Implemented35
Replacement of (destroyed) dykes was done after last floods. In most cases, distance between the new dykes was increased.
30
Beregovo region (transboundary polder - UA/HU, Ukrainian part - 54,000 ha.); in Latorica valley (Ukrainian part - 9,900 ha ). There are some smaller polders as well. 31
Cascade of (retention)polders in the mountains and floodplains are planned, but are under serious discussion with local people, since their arable land will be used. 32
Most of the drainage system was constructed 25-30 years ago. They are upgraded constantly, but not sufficient, so also new plans
33
Deepening of summer bed could affect groundwater level, but nevertheless planned for navigation, not for flood risk reduction
34
According to the rules, the number of the cut forest should be equal to the planted trees. During the last years, the number of the planted trees are higher than cut (A. Iaroshevitch) 35
But problems with practical implementation
113
Alqueva (Portugal)
river bed
Rivierenland (Netherlands) Necessary, but no plans
Floodplain restoration, incl. lowering of floodplain
Implemented Planned Necessary, but no plans
Necessary, but no plans
Implemented Planned
Not necessary
Flood protection
Natural retention of flood water
Change of land use
Other, please specify: Restriction of settlement/building development in risk areas
Planned36 Is current policy for floodplains, but not for other areas
Standards for building development (e.g. permeable surfaces, greening roofs etc.) Total
Implemented Planned Necessary, but no plans Not necessary
Implemented
Necessary, but no plans 7 9 7 2
1 2 4 6
Zacarpathian Tisza (Ukraine) Necessary, but no plans Planned Necessary, but no plans Necessary, but no plans
Upper Tisza (N-Hungary) Necessary, but no plans Implemented Planned Necessary, but no plans Planned Necessary, but no plans
Planned37
Planned
Necessary, but no plans Implemented38 Planned 6 9 8 0
Necessary, but no plans Necessary, but no plans 3 10 11 1
The Zacarpathian Tisza seems to be quite effective in dealing with floods, at least in terms of policy development and implementation. However, the revised State Program for Flood Protection does not include any climate change scenarios (Pers. Comm. Dr. A. Iaroshevitch, Ukrainian Center of Environmental and Water Projects). In other words, there is a serious risk that the implemented and planned flood protection measures are not effective enough for dealing with increased frequency and intensity of floods in the coming decades. On the other hand, in Hungary there are a number of research programmes 39 (Hungarian MoEW 2005; VAHAVA 1 and 2) which are trying to define the scale of possible impacts of climate change. However, since there is no agreement yet on these climate change scenarios it hasn’t been included in current Hungarian water policy. Jolankai et al. (2005) concludes that, based on the analysis of climate-change and precipitation scenarios, that higher floods than observed so far may occur,
36
Lowering of groynes along 90km of the Waal (Rhine River).
37
Flood risk maps are not available and it is not clear when they will be ready. However, according the Water Code of Ukraine, it is prohibited to construct (as well as any other activities) closer than 25 m to the riverbed for the small rivers and 50 m for medium rivers (bigger than 2000 km2). Although the majority of people ignore these rules, there are some cases when authorities destroyed the houses built in the flood prone area (Source: A. Iaroshevitch / D. Haase) 38
After floods 2001 99% of destroyed houses rebuilt with raised foundations (30-40 cm)
39
To tackle the increasing risk stemming from global climate change, and to support the founding of the domestic climate policy the Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water together with the Hungarian Academy of Sciences launched a common research programme named VAHAVA, “The domestic effects of global climate change, and the answers to be given to the challenge”. Primary aim of this project was the preparation to the potential negative and positive effects of climate change, harm reduction, prevention and advancement of restoration.
114
needing upgraded flood-control strategies (with the meaning that presently contemplated strategies, 40 such as the VTT in Hungary, may not be sufficient to cope with floods). The Dutch water policy (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management 2000) recognizes that in the coming years increasing water levels in the rivers and the accelerated rise in sea levels will mean that technical measures, such as raising dykes, will no longer be sufficient. The policy is to allow more space for water. In order to prevent floods, rivers are allowed to expand into side channels and wetland areas. Greater emphasis is also placed on managing water levels rather than keeping the water out. This paradigm shift can also be observed by the current implementation of non-structural measures such as flood insurance, flood zoning restrictions, land-use management, economic incentives, public information and community education (Raadgever and Mostert 2005). Non-structural measures are intended to modify flood susceptibility and flood impact. Also voluntary measures by land users (e.g. change of land-use) are now starting to come into practice.
6.5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Comparing the responsiveness of the management regimes to drought and low flow problems and their responsiveness to flood problems suggests that the former is considerably lower than the latter. Drawing on the discussion in the preceding two sections, part of the explanation may be that flood problems are more directly perceived and experienced by not only experts and policy makers, but also by the wider public, creating a ´policy window´ through public pressure (which may induce responses) and concern (which may help politicians to legitimize responses). This research shows that in a basin where one type of extreme is dominant – like droughts in the Alqueva (Portugal) and floods in Rivierenland (Netherlands) the potential impacts of other extremes are somehow ignored or not perceived with the urgency they might deserve. Within this context, it is important to acknowledge the importance of a critical awareness threshold, prior to the opening of a policy window. We argue that such a critical awareness threshold is directly related to joint/participative information production, as a necessary prerequisite for reaching a critical awareness threshold concerning the impacts of climate change and the need to take anticipatory action. However, such a policy window will only appear if the other conditions, as suggested by Kingdon (1995), have been met. For example, based on the conclusions of the Dutch National Safety Reports (2006), but also based on expert judgment in this research, it is justified to conclude that the political climate in the Netherlands does not make the time right for change as regards the development of a new and innovative drought policy. In contrast to the poor responses to drought and low flow problems, a higher level of AIWM seems to result in more adequate responses to flood problems, at least in terms of flood protection or mitigation measures. The response of more adaptive and integrated regimes is characterized by a higher diversity in the type of measures being implemented or planned, including more attention for non-traditional measures, such as green by-passes and natural retention of flood water. The higher diversity in response
40
The new Vásárhelyi Plan (abbreviated in Hungarian as VTT), adopted on the 15 of October, 2003, envisaged the development of six emergency reservoirs along the Upstream- and Middle Tisza sections to enhance the level of flood safety in the region.
115
measures indicates that horizons of possibility are being expanded, which corresponds to the concept of triple loop learning developed by Robert Hargrove (2002:118). Case-studies showing a lower level of AIWM, for example the Lower Guadiana in Portugal, merely improve performance (e.g. increase reservoir volumes) without changing guiding assumptions or without taking entirely alternative actions into account. This involves doing things better without necessarily examining or challenging underlying beliefs and assumptions (Kahane 2004). These types of actions correspond to single loop learning (Hargrove 2002). In other words, our research indicates that case-studies showing a higher level of AIWM seem to have higher levels of learning in terms of its physical interventions. However, this observation needs to be further investigated by scrutinizing the policy responses of the management regimes in terms of different levels of policy learning (Grin & Loeber 2007). Nevertheless, this first observation is in line with our working hypothesis that AIWM requires many instances of social learning to implement and sustain innovative approaches (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007). Additionally, our research shows that uncertainty related to climate change is often considered as an excuse for not taking action. An exception is case-study Rivierenland where the Room for Rivers-policy is taking into account climate change scenarios, besides other types of uncertainty, such as political and technological uncertainties (Huntjens et al. 2007, update 2009). Hence, we argue that management regimes having the intention to constructively deal with uncertainty are doing this by the active involvement of a diverse group of stakeholders in policy-making, and by means of joint/participative information production. Moreover, we have also seen that some uncertainties might be overcome by conducting policy experiments, such as the management experiment near Avelingen (in the Netherlands) for testing alternative designs for the processes of developing integrated flood management plans (Huntjens et al. 2007, update 2009). In terms of the current status of physical interventions in the river basin the responsiveness of all casestudies to deal with extreme drought events is poor, and we have not found conclusive evidence that a higher level of AIWM creates a better response to drought and low flow problems. However, it is important to acknowledge that a regime with a higher level of AIWM may not have achieved its projected outcomes yet, since there normally is time-lag between policy development and factual implementation. Our research provides evidence that drought response/adaptation seems to be slower than responsiveness related to floods. This might be explained by different risk perceptions (Green et al. 2007; Neuvel, 2004; De Hollander and Hanemaaijer 2003; Lijklema 2001) and differences in the availability of solutions. We also suggest that these differences might be explained by the nature of the problem itself, whereas flood management is determined by safety concerns, drought management is determined by water scarcity and related problems in the allocation of water resources. Moreover, we argue that the threat of floods is often perceived as more threatening and acute than the threat of droughts, since the latter is spread out of longer time periods and consequences are often felt indirectly. Moreover, in the Netherlands, the risk of drought problems and water scarcity caused by climate change is not acknowledged by all stakeholders, as indicated by the experts in this research, but also by Neuvel (2004). Combining the poor response to drought and low flows problems with the enormous social, economic and environmental effects in recent years it is justified to support Milligan’s statement that droughts and heat waves are the developed world’s hidden disaster (Milligan 2004), and in this case the hidden disaster of Europe. We argue that a regime element such as joint/participative information production is crucial for identifying hidden disasters and for reaching a critical awareness threshold for initiating a policy window. From this perspective it is expected that a regime with a higher level of AIWM is more responsive to the threat of new or hidden disasters than a less adaptive regime. This seems to be confirmed by case-study Rivierenland, since they have been confronted with serious droughts only recently, but the first steps are 116
being taken as regards developing a nation-wide adaptation strategy for this specific problem, expected to be published in 2012 (Pers. Comm. Luit-Jan Dijkhuis, Directorate-General Water, Netherlands). However, the current political climate might be a limiting factor for consolidating a comprehensive strategy. Besides the above explanations for the different responses to flood and drought problems we also argue that looking at physical interventions provides an incomplete picture of the capabilities or outputs of a water management regime. Hence, drawing conclusions merely based on the physical response would be premature, and we argue that a management regime with a higher level of AIWM might be more productive in terms of management interventions than in terms of physical interventions. In other words, our research provides valuable insights as regards the research design for analyzing complex multi-level governance systems. One of the limitations of the research design in this paper is the narrow definition of the outputs of a management regime, being defined as physical interventions in the river basin. Apart from the physical intervention in the water system a regime’s performance could and should also be measured by its ‘non-physical’ measures, such as awareness campaigns, measures for improving information management and exchange, cooperation structures, insurance mechanisms, etcetera. In principle, these are measures which target at all the elements of a water management regime, and even could target at (changing) the formal institutional setting (e.g. European Directives and national or regional water laws). This means that there could be many nonlinear feedback loops within the regime itself, and the regime is in that sense creating its own enabling environment. Especially in regimes with a higher level of AIWM the formal institutional setting is being altered by the demand for governance as regards (new developments in) water related problems, such as the impacts of climate change. Examples include the Dutch National Water Agreement (Bestuursakkoord Water 2002), leading towards the start of implementing the Room for Rivers-policy (PKB Ruimte voor de Rivier 2006), and the Hungarian National Drought Strategy (2004). Therefore, in succeeding research of the EU Newater project we will focus on climate change adaptation strategies, being defined as an output of the management regime. These strategies will be assessed by looking at physical AND management interventions. Additionally, the outputs of a management regime will be evaluated in terms of different levels of policy learning (Hall 1988; Bennet 1992; Sanderson 2002; Huitema & Meijerink 2007; Grin & Loeber, 2007). We believe that such a research design, thanks to lessons learned in this research, is better equipped for analyzing the adaptive capacities of water management regimes. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the local stakeholders and experts in the four case-studies, in the Netherlands, Portugal, Hungary and Ukraine. The work was prepared under contract from the European Commission, Contract no. 511179 (GOCE), Integrated Project in PRIORITY 6.3 Global Change and Ecosystems in the 6th EU framework programme: the NeWater-project (www.newater.info). Furthermore, we thank two anonymous reviewers for the very useful comments to improve the quality of the paper.
117
CHAPTER 7 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REGIME CHARACTERISTICS AND LEVELS OF POLICY LEARNING IN RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT 41 42
Public document
2
Patrick Huntjens¹, Claudia Pahl-Wostl¹, Benoit Rihoux , Maja Schlüter³, Zsuzsanna Flachner⁴, Susana Neto⁵, Romana Koskova⁶, Chris Dickens⁷, Issah Nabide Kiti⁸
¹ Institute for Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabruck, Germany 2
Centre de Politique Comparee (CPC), Unite de Science Politique et de Relations Internationales (SPRI), Universite de catholique de Louvain (UCL), Belgium ³ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Germany ⁴ Hungarian Academy of Sciences (RISSAC), Budapest, Hungary ⁵ Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Portugal ⁶ Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic (IHAS), Prague, Czech Republic ⁷ Institute of Natural Resources (INR), University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN), South Africa ⁸ Kagera Transboundary Integrated Water Resources Management & Development Project, Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Program, Nile Basin Initiative (NBI)
Abstract This chapter provides an evidence-based and policy relevant contribution to understanding the phenomenon of policy learning and its structural constraints in the field of river basin management, in particular related to coping with current and future climatic hazards such as floods and droughts. This has been done by a formal comparative analysis of eight water management regimes in Europe, Africa, and Asia, focusing on the relationship between regime characteristics and different levels of policy learning.
41
Huntjens, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., Rihoux, B., Flachner, Z., Neto, S., Koskova, R., Schlueter, M., Nabide Kiti, I., Dickens, C. (2008) The role of adaptive and integrated water management (AIWM) in developing climate change adaptation strategies for dealing with floods and droughts - A formal comparative analysis of eight water management regimes in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Deliverable 1.7.9b of the NeWater project, Institute of Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabruck, Germany 42
A shorter and adjusted version of this chapter is currently in press with Environmental Policy and Governance
119
This research has revealed the importance of the socio-cognitive dimension in adaptive water management, as being an essential emerging property depending on a specific set of structural conditions, and inherent to the adaptive capacity of governance systems. In particular, better integrated cooperation structures in combination with advanced information management are the key factors leading towards higher levels of policy learning. Additional observations of this research are significant correlations between different regime elements and a balance between top-down and bottom-up governance. Key words: Policy learning, triple loop learning, adaptive and integrated water management, adaptive capacity, river basin management, climate change adaptation strategies, floods, droughts, formal comparative analysis, multi-value QCA (mvQCA)
7.1
INTRODUCTION
Government can no longer ignore the turbulence and complexity of its operating environment (Leicester, 43 2007). Instead, it needs to find its own treasure within. This is the case for policy learning (Sabatier, 1988; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Leicester, 2007). In his book ‘System Failure’ Jack Chapman (2002) made a strong argument for learning within government as the key way to handle complexity and its associated lack of predictability and control. According to Leicester (2007) a key part of the challenge is to encourage government itself to participate in the learning process, and to overcome the psychological and structural constraints it faces that militate against learning. Policy learning approaches generally hold that policy agents can learn from their experiences and that they can modify their present actions on the basis of their interpretation of how previous actions have fared in the past (Sabatier, 1988; Bennet and Howlett, 1992). However, many of the fundamental elements of such learning remain conceptually unclear and, as a result, the entire phenomenon of experience-induced policy change remains difficult to operationalize (Grin & Loeber, 2007; Leicester, 2007; Kemp & Weehuizen, 2005; Sanderson, 2002; Chapman, 2002; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Bennet and Howlett, 1992; Hernes, 1976). This paper intends to build an evidence-based contribution to understanding the phenomenon of policy learning and its structural constraints in the field of river basin management, in particular related to coping with current and future climatic hazards such as floods and droughts. The challenges posed by climate-related extreme events to river basins are manifold, especially since water resource issues interact with a wide range of environmental and socio-economic sectors including health, public safety, agriculture, biodiversity, industry, navigation, and tourism. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) an increase in the surface temperature of water, and changes in the hydrological cycle could result in changing rainfall patterns. Some areas may
43
st
The Delors Commission for UNESCO on education for the 21 century called learning 'the treasure within'.
120
experience intense rainfall resulting in heavy floods, while other areas may witness less rainfall, and also frequent droughts. On a global scale the number of disasters caused by weather-related phenomena such as storms, floods and droughts has more than doubled over the past decade, from 175 in 1996 to 391 in 2005 (IFRC, 2007). The increasing frequency and intensity of floods and droughts is also being confirmed by the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007), which argues that "there are multiple lines of evidence that climate change is happening now, and the impacts are being seen now". Given the expected increase of climate related extreme events, water management capabilities in the case-studies, and on a global scale, will be tested to their limits by the effects of climate change. This requires innovative and adaptive ways of managing water, which can be referred to as “Adaptive and Integrated Water Management” (AIWM). This paper addresses the role of AIWM in developing climate change adaptation strategies to deal with impacts of climate change on floods and droughts. For this purpose we will conduct a formal comparative analysis of the water management regimes and related adaptation strategies in the selected case-studies. The case-studies in this paper represent the whole spectrum of traditional water management (command and control regimes) and adaptive and integrated water management regimes (management as learning 44 approach). Additionally, all case-studies are being confronted with an increasing intensity and frequency in flood and/or droughts (Huntjens, et al. 2008). The case-studies in this paper include eight river basins in Africa, Asia, and Europe: 1) Rivierenland in the Netherlands, as a sub basin of the Rhine; 2) Alentejo region in Portugal, as a sub basin of the Guadiana; 3) Hungarian part of the Upper Tisza; 4) Ukrainian part of the Upper Tisza (also called the Zacarpathian Tisza); 5) Ohre Basin in Czech Republic, as a sub basin of the Elbe; 6) Kagera Basin in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania, as a sub basin of the Nile; 7) Lower AmuDarya in Uzbekistan, as a sub basin of the AmuDarya; 8) Upper Vaal catchment in South Africa, as a sub basin of the Orange. This paper is focusing on conditions and processes at the sub-basin level (e.g. water boards), but being embedded in a wider context (e.g. institutional setting at different levels). The sub basin level is conceived as the level where all elements of a water management regime are at play. At the same time this level is influencing, or is being influenced by, higher and lower levels of management. This central position also allows for assessing the outcomes of a water management regime at the operational level, since the management on the sub-basin level (e.g. water board or regional water authority) is influenced by international or national regulation, while implementing at the operational/local level. The characteristics of AIWM (see next section) are to be regarded as working hypotheses, since the change towards more adaptive management regimes is yet slow and empirical data and practical experience thus limited – in particular regarding the interdependence of elements of the management regime. The strong interdependence of the factors stabilizing current management regimes is also one possible reason for this lack of innovation. One cannot, for example, move easily from top-down to participatory management practices without changing the whole approach to information and risk management. Hence, research is urgently needed to better understand the interdependence of key elements of water management regimes and the dynamics of transition processes in order to be able to
44
Based on a baseline assessment of all case-studies in the EU NeWater-project (www.newater.info)
121
compare and evaluate alternative management regimes and to implement and support transition processes if required (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007a). The key research question in this article is whether a higher level of AIWM is showing a different response in coping with floods and droughts than management regimes with a lower level of AIWM. This will be done by looking at different levels of policy learning (Hall, 1988; Bennet and Howlet,t 1992; Sanderson, 2002; Argyris, 1999; Hargrove, 2002), being reflected and/or consolidated in the adaptation strategies to deal with either floods or droughts. In this paper we define policy learning as a 'deliberate attempt to adjust the goals or techniques of policy in the light of the consequences of past policy and new information so as to better attain the ultimate objects of governance' (Hall, 1988: 6). Not much work is available on comparative analyses of river basins including the full range of a water management regime’s complexity (Myint, 2005; Wolf, 1997). This research is one of the first of its kind in comparing complex water management regimes in a semi-quantitative way, but also by making operational the concepts of AIWM and policy learning. Additionally, the method (mvQCA) for analyzing the relationship between regime characteristics and policy learning has not been applied before in this specific field, neither in this specific way (Huntjens et al., 2008). A calibrated approach (standardized questionnaires and interviews, expert judgment and reinterpretation of outcomes by means of relevant literature, and formal comparative analysis (mvQCA)) was used to compare the state of affairs in water management in the selected case-studies and to analyze the relationship between regime characteristics and different levels of policy learning.
ADAPTIVE AND INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT 45
Despite the fact that the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is widely accepted as the appropriate framework to deal with complex water resources management issues, the scientific base for IWRM is not yet fully developed. It lacks both empirical knowledge and concepts that allow effective transfer of successful experiences across basins and frontiers. More flexible approaches, such as adaptive water management, have been advocated as an essential and timely extension of the IWRM approach to improve the conceptual and methodological base to realize the goals of IWRM (PahlWostl and Sendzimir, 2005; Moberg and Galaz, 2005; Pahl-Wostl, 2007b). To deal with existing and new complexities water resources management must be able to respond to changes in the natural and social environment and to anticipate associated uncertainties (Folke et al., 2005; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007b). Adaptation to climate change and management of related risks should therefore be built into water resources management plans and programmes. Adaptive and integrated
45
One of the most often referred to definitions of IWRM is the one by the Global Water Partnership (GWP) defining IWRM as ‘a process which promotes the co-ordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximise the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.’ (GWP-TEC, 2000).
122
management is considered to be an appropriate approach for doing so. Adaptive and integrated management can be defined as a structured process for improving systemic management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of implemented management strategies (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007b). By re-evaluating goals, objectives and means how to achieve them as new information and insights become available, adaptive management is more responsive to changing conditions of and demands on ecosystems as compared to traditional approaches to water resource management. AIWM requires different capabilities than traditional forms of water management, particularly when it comes to creating forms of collaboration between water managers and stakeholders, the relation between science and policy, the importance of participatory learning processes, dealing with uncertainty, and assessing a wide variety of possible measures and future scenarios. It requires many instances of social learning to implement and sustain innovative management approaches (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007b). As e.g. Folke et al. (2005) have pointed out, social learning is needed to build up experience for coping with uncertainty and change. They emphasize that “knowledge generation in itself is not sufficient for building adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems to meet the challenge of navigating nature’s dynamics” and conclude that “learning how to sustain social-ecological systems in a world of continuous change needs an institutional and social context within which to develop and act”. Knowledge and the ability to act upon new insights are continuously enacted in social processes. Hence, the social network of stakeholders is an invaluable asset for dealing with change (Folke et al., 2005; Pahl-Wostl and Hare, 2004; Chapman, 2002). In short, adaptive management requires a process of active learning by all stakeholders, and continuous improvement of management strategies by learning from the outcomes of implemented policies (Geldof, 1995; Pahl-Wostl, 2004; Pahl-Wostl, 2007b). In technology dominated water management practice, design and structure of governance regimes has not played a prominent role. Adaptive and integrated water management implies a real paradigm shift in water management from what can be described as a prediction and control to a management as learning approach. Such change aims at increasing the adaptive capacity of river basins at different scales and implies a change in the whole water management regime (Pahl-Wostl, 2007b). Some structural requirements for a water management regime to be adaptive are summarized in table 6.1 (see previous chapter).
7.2 INTERDEPENDENCE OF THE REGIME CHARACTERISTICS AND POLICY LEARNING The key objective of our research is to see whether there is a link between regime characteristics and policy learning (as an output of the regime at play). For this purpose we needed to develop two different and independent analytical frameworks: 1.
A framework for assessing the characteristics of a water management regime (see chapter 3)
2.
A framework for assessing different types or levels of policy learning (see chapter 4)
Below we will provide the conceptual background for both frameworks and related development of indicators.
123
A FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A WATER MANAGEMENT REGIME For this purpose we developed a normative framework of how an adaptive and integrated management regime looks like, in order to develop indicators for assessing the regime characteristics. For this normative framework we have used the working hypotheses on the characteristics of AIWM being presented in table 6.1 (see previous chapter). These working hypotheses have been further developed into an analytical framework for evaluating the level of Adaptive and Integrated Water Management (Huntjens et al., 2010; Raadgever et al., 2008). Additional variables were included based on relevant literature (Huntjens et al., 2010). This resulted in an analytical framework for assessing regime characteristics, consisting of 64 indicators divided over nine dimensions of AIWM: 1) Agency; 2) Awareness Raising & Education; 3) Type of governance; 4) Cooperation structures; 5) Policy development & implementation; 6) Information management & sharing; 7) Finances and cost recovery; 8) Risk management; 9) Effectiveness of (international) regulation.
A FRAMEWORK FOR ASSESSING DIFFERENT TYPES OF POLICY LEARNING A second and independent methodology has been developed (see Huntjens et al., 2008) for assessing the levels of policy learning being observed in the adaptation strategies of each water management regime. The adaptation strategies for dealing with floods and/or droughts are being defined as an output of a water management regime. Policy learning is a concept being used by different authors in the field of public administration (e.g. Hall, 1988; Bennet and Howlett, 1992; Sanderson, 2002; Leicester, 2007; Grin & Loeber, 2007; Sabatier, 1988, 1991; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993). In this paper we define policy learning as a 'deliberate attempt to adjust the goals or techniques of policy in the light of the consequences of past policy and new information so as to better attain the ultimate objects of governance' (Hall, 1988: 6). Policy learning involves a socially-conditioned discursive or argumentative process of development of cognitive schemes or frames which questions the goals and assumptions of policies (Sanderson, 2002: 6). Policies change in a variety of different ways. As has long been recognized, some policies are new and innovative, while others are merely incremental refinements of earlier policies (Hogwood and Peters, 1983; Polsby, 1984). In other words, it is important to take into account that policy learning may have different levels of intensity (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007b). For distinguishing between different levels of policy learning we use the concept of double loop learning (Argyris, 1999) and triple loop learning (Hargrove, 2002), as an extension of the double loop concept (see figure 7.1).
124
Context
Frame of reference
Actions
Results (Errors)
Single loop learning
Double loop learning
Triple loop learning Regime transformation / paradigm shift (e.g. from ‘fight against water’ to ‘living with water’ and change of regulatory framework)
Changing the frame of reference and guiding assumptions (e.g. increase in the diversity of measures, such as retention areas and by-passes).
Refinement of established actions without changing guiding assumptions or without taking alternative actions into account (e.g. increase height of dikes to improve flood protection).
Figure 7.1 – Triple loop learning concept derived from Hargrove (2002), and adjusted by Huntjens et al. (2008)
In order to distinguish different learning processes and how to classify them according to the triple loop concept it is useful to start with some definitions (based on Hargrove, 2002): o
Single loop learning (SLL) – refinement of established actions to improve performance without changing guiding assumptions or without taking entirely alternative actions into account (e.g. increase height of dikes to improve flood protection).
o
Double loop learning (DLL) – change in frame of reference and guiding assumptions (e.g. increase boundaries for flood management and encourage collaboration across national boundaries in large river basins).
o
Triple loop learning (TLL) – transformation of context to change factors that determine the frame of reference. This kind of learning refers to transitions of the whole regime. Values and norms are shaped and stabilized by the structural context.
The triple loop concept of Hargrove (2002) has been operationalised into a list of indicators (table 7.2) for assessing the type of learning being reflected in the most advanced adaptation strategies in the casestudies under consideration (table 7.5). The purpose of this assessment is to determine which type of learning is dominant in each of these strategies. For being able to conduct a multi-value QCA it is necessary to have a binary outcome. Hence, based on the assessment presented in table 7.5 we have made a distinction between case-studies dominated by single loop learning / ad-hoc problem solving and case-studies dominated by double loop learning (including elements of triple learning). In other words, for this specific multi-value QCA it is not strictly required to make an operational distinction between double loop learning and triple loop learning, although we will still use the conceptual distinction for fine-tuning our analysis.
125
Table 7.2 – Overview of indicators for assessing the type of learning being reflected in the most advanced adaptation strategies in the case-studies under consideration. For each indicator reference to related literature is being provided
Type of learning Single loop learning (Abbreviation: SLL)
Double loop learning (Abbreviation: DLL)
Triple loop learning (Abbreviation: TLL)
7.3
Indicators 1) When small changes are made to specific practices or behaviours, based on what has or has not worked in the past. This involves doing things better without necessarily examining or challenging underlying beliefs and assumptions (Kahane, 2004). In other words, goals, values, plans and rules are operationalized rather than questioned (Argyris and Schön, 1974) 2) When goals, values, frameworks and, to a significant extent, strategies are taken for granted. The emphasis is on ‘techniques and making techniques more efficient’ (Usher and Bryant: 1989: 87) > e.g. increase height of dikes for flood protection 1) When modifications (as the result of learning) are occurring, or have occurred, in personnel, programs, and legal and organizational structures that incorporate new information (including policy feedback) and causal understandings that yield more intellectually perceptive processes, a wider range of capabilities, and more effective policy (Brown, 2000:3) 2) When actor networks are being changed by including new and different stakeholders, supporting reflection on own assumptions and showing new possibilities. The social network of stakeholders is being used as an invaluable asset for learning and dealing with change (Folke et al., 2005; Geels et al., 2004 ) 3) When uncertainties are being identified, as a first step that is needed to find solutions (Brugnach, et al., 2008), and when (identified) uncertainties have been taken into account in current policy-making, for example by adaptation strategies based on climate change scenarios (Huntjens, et al., 2007) 1) When horizons of possibility are being expanded (Hargrove, 2002:118), for example by developing and implementing entirely new management measures or entirely new physical interventions in the river basin (Huntjens, et al., 2007) 2) When a paradigm shift takes place, that alters our way of thinking and behaviour (Hargrove, 2002:119, Pahl-Wostl, et al., 2006) 3) When a major structural change has been taking place in the regulatory framework for dealing with floods or droughts
METHODOLOGY
A calibrated approach, using a standardized questionnaire for the characteristics of water management regime, and a questionnaire for determining key characteristics of adaptation strategies (see table 7.5), expert judgement for both questionnaires, and reinterpretation of outcomes by means of relevant literature, was used to compare the water management regimes in the selected case-studies. A complete outlay of the questionnaires being used for data collection can be found in NeWater Deliverables 1.7.9a and 1.7.9b (Huntjens et al., 2007; 2008). In this research, expert judgment has been used as a method for knowledge elicitation on regime elements and internal processes. The list of potential respondents for each case-study was developed in cooperation with the case-study teams of NeWater, with the objective of selecting a group of respondents with enough knowledge on the case-study under consideration, and the ability to answer the whole questionnaire, or at least a major part of it. Moreover, with the objective of including all relevant perspectives and experiences in the case-study the respondents group was selected as a reflection of the most relevant stakeholders, policymakers, water practitioners, involved scientists, private sector and civil
126
society. This resulted in a consultation round involving a minimum of ten experts in each case-study, reflecting perspectives from different categories (see table 7.3). We are aware of the possibility of differential biases, given that some basins are more open societies than others, and what is "truth" or which "truth" should be communicated to whom can be quite different in different cultures. In this paper we have tried to reduce biased results by including the perspectives from civil society, (independent) researchers, and other non-governmental parties, next to government officials. Details on data processing and calculation of weighted averages have been published earlier in Huntjens, et al. (2007; 2008).
Table 7.3 – Overview of the number of experts (per category) consulted in each case-study
7.4
COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
Table 7.4 shows an overview of all significant correlations between the variables in our framework for assessing a water management regime. For a complete overview of correlation coefficients see Huntjens, et al. (2008).
Table 7.4 - Overview of all significant correlations between the variables in our framework for assessing a water management regime Variable
Is positively correlated with variable:
Joint/participative information production Levels of, and provisions for, stakeholder participation Vertical cooperation
Vertical cooperation (p=0.91), transboundary cooperation (p=0.95), consideration of uncertainties (p=0.95), and broad communication (p=0.90) Consideration of possible measures (p=0.96), and risk perception (p=0.95)
Consideration of uncertainties
Bottom-up governance (p=0.97) joint/participative information production (p=0.91) and consideration of uncertainties (p=0.90) Time horizon in policy development (0.90), consideration of possible measures (0.90), broad communication (p=0.90), utilization of information (p=0.94), joint/participative information production (p=0.95), vertical cooperation (p=0.90)
127
Monitoring and evaluation Risk perception Vertical conflict resolution Utilization of information
Elicitation of mental models/ critical self-reflection about assumptions (p=0.95) Consideration of possible measures (p=0.95) Level of compliance to (inter)national regulation (p=0.91) Time horizon in policy development (p=0.96) and consideration of possible measures (p=0.91)
Table 7.4 reveals many positive correlations between variables from different regime elements. This suggests a strong interdependence of the elements within a water management regime, and as such this interdependence is a stabilizing factor in current management regimes. For example, based on the positive correlations between joint/participative information production, vertical cooperation, transboundary cooperation, consideration of uncertainties, and broad communication we can conclude that a lack of consensual knowledge is an important obstacle for cooperation, and vice versa, especially when with uncertainty and change, which is also being suggested by other researchers (Olsson et al., 2006; Stubbs and Lemon, 2001; Tompkins and Adger, 2004). The observed correlations provide evidence that different regime elements are highly interconnected, especially indicators of the regime elements cooperation structures and information management (table 7.5). After all, stakeholders who have been working together at one stage will likely meet each other in the next stage of policy making, taking with them their mutual (dis)trust, their history of (un)resolved conflicts, jointly produced information, existing collaboration forms or agreements, and norms or rules agreed upon previously. The concept of social learning has as central hypothesis that the management of content and the social involvement are strongly interdependent and cannot be separated (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007a). Content management relates to the processing of factual information on a problem, while social involvement refers to essential elements of social processes such as the framing of the problem, the management of the boundaries between different stakeholder groups, the type of ground rules and negotiation strategies chosen or the role of leadership in the process (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007a). An important hypothesis in the concept of social learning is that information management and social (cooperation) structures are interlinked, which corresponds to the socio-cognitive theory of information systems (Hemmingway, 1998). Hemmingway pays attention to the impacts of presented information on learning and action, and the centrality of the selection and organization of information to the nature of organizational forms. Our research confirms that information management and social (cooperation) structures are interlinked in the management systems under consideration. This interdependency can be described as the socio-cognitive dimension of water management regimes. We define the socio-cognitive dimension as the integrated cognitive and social properties of complex systems and related processes (e.g. social learning and participative processes). These (informal) learning environments are an emergent property of the interlinkage between information management and social cooperation structures, and are perceived to be crucial for the adaptive governance of socio-ecological systems (Folke et al., 2005; PahlWostl and Sendzimir, 2005).
128
Table 7.5 - Overview of the results (weighted averages) of expert judgement on each indicator (From: Huntjens, et al., 2008). ‘0’ indicates a condition belonging to a non-adaptive and non-integrated regime; and ‘2’ as a condition belonging to an adaptive and integrated regime. This type of scoring is a prerequisite for our method mvQCA (for more details see appendix and Huntjens et al. 2008)
129
The weighted averages on governance suggest that bottom-up governance plays not such a primary role in AIWM as earlier suggested. For example, the weighted average on governance in Rivierenland (see table 7.5) indicates that there is much more top-down governance than could be expected from consensus-based decision-making, particularly since the Netherlands is well-known for its consensusbased decision-making (also called the ‘Poldermodel’). All the case-studies in this research seem to be in a process of finding a balance between bottom-up and top-down governance. A discussion revolving around the need to fine balance bottom up approaches with centralized control has been published in Huntjens et al. (2010). In summary, for large-scale, complex multiple-use systems, such as river basins, this research suggests that bottom-up governance and decentralization is not a straight forward solution to water management problems. There will probably always be the need for a certain degree of top-down governance (or centralization), where a central authority has the responsibility and resources for issues like facilitation of participatory processes, setting of standards, capacity building, conflict resolution and cooperation across
130
boundaries. Additionally, a central authority is often needed for providing information and knowledge that is not available or accessible at the “grass-root” level.
7.5
RELATIVE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES PER CASE-STUDY
Below paragraphs will describe the relative strengths and weaknesses of each management system, based on the weighted averages shown in table 7.5. Indicators with a weighted average belonging to the two lowest weighted averages of all case-studies have been selected as a relative weakness. Indicators with a weighted average belonging to the two highest weighted averages of all case-studies have been selected as a relative strength. Additionally, indicators which show a weighted average more than 0.4 (in table 7.5) lower than the average score of its category (e.g. information management is one category) than this indicator is (also) selected as a relative weakness. Indicators which show a weighted average which is more than 0.4 (in table 7.5) higher than the average score of its category is selected as a relative strength. Rivierenland in the Netherlands (Lower Rhine Basin) Relative Strengths: Leadership does mobilize allies Public awareness programs for water management are regularly implemented in collaboration with civil society organizations and the media Balance between top-down and bottom up governance, although water authorities state that ‘public and civil society are still not adequately mobilised, despite substantial investments’ (Directorate General Water, 2006), it still shows a relatively high score on bottom-up governance compared to other case-studies. Good Legal provisions concerning access to information, participation in decision-making (e.g. consultation requirements) and access to courts Horizontal cooperation Vertical cooperation Transboundary cooperation Already now preparations are taken for the (far) future (20 years or more) Several alternatives and scenario’s are discussed Alternatives include small and large-scale and structural and nonstructural measures
In general, good information management, meaning joint (consensual) knowledge production, interdisciplinarity, consideration of uncertainties, utilization of information, broad communication Relative Weaknesses: Limited private sector participation in river basin management Financial resources for water management are dominated by public financial instruments, while private financial instruments are limited.
Limited introduction of water management and related issues into school programs of primary and secondary schools
Alentejo region in Portugal (Lower Guadiana) Relative Strengths: Leadership has authority to act externally, in particular the legal competence in given subject matter Insurance mechanisms are available for harvest, housing and property damage Relative Weaknesses: Very limited bottom-up governance, although civil society involvement is slowly growing Leadership is mainly reactive; in general, problems must first occur before taking action Leadership’s mobilization of allies is limited Limited introduction of water management and related issues into school programs of primary and secondary schools Limited contribution of non-governmental stakeholders to agenda setting, analyzing problems, developing solutions and taking decisions (“co-production”), mainly due to limited resources for civil society in general Limited vertical integration (cooperation between hierarchical levels in government) and limited conflict resolution between hierarchical levels in government
131
Limited support to small-scale policy experiments In general, alternatives do not include small and nonstructural measures in river basin management Limited adoption of an M&E plan during project preparation that includes establishment of process indicators, stress reduction indicators, and environmental status indicators. In general, non-governmental stakeholders are not involved in setting the TORs and supervising the search for information, or at least consulted (interviews, surveys etc.) In general, researchers do not allow their research to be challenged by stakeholders and present their own assumption in as far as they are aware of them In general, research results are not presented in a facilitative way, to stimulate reflection by the stakeholders about what is possible and what it is they want In general, uncertainties are glossed over and not communicated (in final reports, orally) Limited private sector participation in river basin management Limited involvement of non-governmental stakeholders in risk perceptions and in decisions on what are acceptable risks Limited use of coercive sanctions as legitimate means of generating compliance in institutionalized horizontal setting, e.g. with institutionalized horizontal coercion, shaming, and adjudication Soft paths to compliance are very limited (e.g. capacity building, legitimacy building, and the voluntary internalization of law)
Ohre Basin in Czech Republic (Upper Elbe) Relative Strengths: Leadership does mobilize allies Leadership has authority to act externally, in particular the legal competence in given subject matter Sectoral governments actively involve other government sectors Transboundary cooperation Several alternatives and scenario’s are discussed Different government bodies are involved in project preparation and supervising the search for information, or at least consulted (interviews, surveys etc.) In general a fairly good information management, especially broad communication, consideration of uncertainties, although involvement of civil society could be improved Costs are recovered from the ‘users’ by public and private financial instruments (charges, prices, insurance etc.) Insurance mechanisms are available for harvest, housing and property damage Relative Weaknesses: Solutions for short term problems are running a risk of causing more problems in the (far) future (20 years or more) Policies remain often unchanged, even when there are good reasons not to implement policies, such as new and unforeseen circumstances and new insights Limited involvement of non-governmental stakeholders in decisions on what are acceptable risks Limited use of coercive sanctions as legitimate means of generating compliance in institutionalized horizontal setting, e.g. with institutionalized horizontal coercion, shaming, and adjudication
Tisza Basin in Ukraine (also called Zacarpathian Tisza) Relative Strengths: Co-operation structures include government bodies from different sectors; many contacts in general Relative Weaknesses: Limited introduction of water management and related issues into school programs of primary and secondary schools No water users’ associations in place, in other words, non-governmental stakeholders do not undertake parts of river basin management themselves Policies remain often unchanged, even when there are good reasons not to implement policies, such as new and unforeseen circumstances and new insights Uncertainties are normally glossed over and not communicated (in final reports, orally) In general, new information is distorted and not used in public debates Limited (public and private) resources for river basin management Authorities have limited ability to take loans and depreciate their assets, to facilitate efficient use of resources and replacement of assets Financial resources for water management are dominated by public financial instruments, while private financial instruments are limited. Limited private sector participation in river basin management Insurance mechanisms against harvest, housing and property damage are in general not available
132
Soft paths to compliance are limited (e.g. capacity building, legitimacy building, and the voluntary internalization of law)
Upper Tisza in Hungary Relative Strengths: Leadership does mobilize allies Leadership takes advantage of exogenous factors (e.g. when political climate is right) International/ transboundary co-operation structures exist (e.g. river basin commissions); many contacts generally Non-governmental stakeholders contribute to agenda setting, analyzing problems, developing solutions (co-production)". Both formal expert judgment and risk perceptions by the stakeholders Harvest insurance mechanisms are available (seen as a measure to reduce vulnerability), although not many people can afford to pay for it. Relative weaknesses: Limited awareness raising and education on water resources management and related issues Limited horizontal integration (cooperation between different government sectors) and limited conflict resolution between sectoral governments Limited vertical integration (cooperation between hierarchical levels in government) and limited conflict resolution between hierarchical levels in government Solutions for short term problems are running a risk of causing more problems in the (far) future (20 years or more) Limited discussion on alternatives and scenario’s Limited adoption of an M&E plan during project preparation that includes establishment of process indicators, stress reduction indicators, and environmental status indicators. Different government bodies are not always involved in setting the TORs and supervising the search, or at least consulted (interviews, surveys etc.) Limited elicitation of mental models / critical self-reflection on guiding assumptions Limited consideration of uncertainty: 1) Uncertainties are glossed and not communicated (in final reports, orally); 2) Researchers are reluctant to talk with stakeholders about uncertainties Limited communication: 1) Governments are reluctant in exchanging information and data with other governments; 2) Limited dissemination of information and data to the public: on the Internet, but also by producing leaflets, though the media, etc. Limited utilization of information (not specifically related to climate change): New information is distorted and not used in public debates Financial resources for water management are dominated by public financial instruments, while private financial instruments are limited. Limited private sector participation in river basin management Limited involvement of non-governmental stakeholders in decisions on what are acceptable risks Limited use of coercive sanctions as legitimate means of generating compliance in institutionalized horizontal setting, e.g. with institutionalized horizontal coercion, shaming, and adjudication Limited high-level political commitment to follow up joint action as signified by, among other things, ministerial level declarations or adoption of a joint legal/institutional framework
Lower AmuDarya Basin in Uzbekistan Relative Strengths: Top level leadership has authority to act, in particular the legal competence in water resources management Horizontal integration: Sectoral governments (e.g. water and agriculture) actively involve other government sectors, although agricultural sector dictates water management in general. Nevertheless, existing cooperation structures include government bodies from different sectors; many contacts generally. Conflicts between higher and lower levels of government are dealt with constructively, normally forced by topdown decisions/agreements Insurance mechanisms are available for harvest, housing and property damage. However, not everybody can afford to pay for insurance, and insurances for crop loss (failure of germination) are forced upon the farmers, i.e. the amount is taken by the government from their bank accounts Relative Weaknesses: Leadership does not always take advantage of exogenous factors (e.g. when political climate is right) In general, leadership is reactive; problems must first occur before taking action Limited introduction of water management and related issues into school programs of primary and secondary schools Limited involvement of non-governmental stakeholders/civil society in agenda setting, knowledge production and decisionmaking, partly due to limited legal provisions for stakeholder participation (e.g no consultation requirements), limited access to information, and access to courts is difficult
133
Co-operation structures do not include non-governmental stakeholders, and they are not involved in perception of risks and in decisions on what are acceptable risks Limited involvement of lower level governments in decision-making by higher level governments Solutions for short term problems are running a risk of causing more problems in the (far) future (20 years or more) Preparations for the (far) future (20 years or more) are not on the agenda In general, limited discussion on several alternatives and scenarios, and alternatives rarely include small and nonstructural measures in river basin management Policies often remain unchanged, even when there are good reasons not to implement policies, such as new and unforeseen circumstances and new insights In general, uncertainties are glossed over and not communicated (in final reports, orally), and researchers are reluctant to talk with stakeholders about uncertainties In general, new information on climate change impacts is distorted and not used in public debates River basin information systems are not up to standards In general, indicators on finances and cost recovery are showing lowest averages of all case-studies
Kagera Basin in Uganda/Rwanda/Burundi/Tanzania (Upper Nile Basin) Relative Strengths: Leadership takes advantage of exogenous factors (e.g. when political climate is right) Leadership has authority to act externally, in particular the legal competence in given subject matter IWRM is regularly introduced in educational/capacity building programs Transboundary cooperation In addition to technical and engineering sciences also for instance ecology and the social sciences are involved in defining and executing the research Researchers allow their research to be challenged by stakeholders and present their own assumption in as far as they are aware of them Research results are presented in a facilitative way, to stimulate reflection by the stakeholders about what is possible and what it is they want Adoption of an M&E plan during project preparation, mainly due to requirements for international funding Authorities can take loans and depreciate their assets, to facilitate efficient use of resources and replacement of assets Relative Weaknesses: In general, leadership is reactive; problems must first occur before taking action Limited introduction of water management and related issues into school programs of primary and secondary schools Limited involvement of non-governmental stakeholders, although influence of civil society is slowly growing Limited horizontal integration (cooperation between different government sectors) and limited conflict resolution between sectoral governments Solutions for short term problems are running a risk of causing more problems in the (far) future (20 years or more) Limited political support and financial resources for small-scale policy experiments Implementation of water resources management plans is limited, mainly due to capacity problems and political priorities on economic development and povery alleviation. Insufficient (public and private) resources for river basin management in general Limited exchange of information between different government River basin information systems are not up to standards Limited private sector participation in river basin management Limited availability of insurance mechanisms for harvest, housing and property damage, even when available, most people cannot afford to pay for insurance.
Vaal catchment in South Africa (Upper Orange Basin) Relative Strengths: Leadership does mobilize allies Leadership takes advantage of exogenous factors (e.g. when political climate is right) Good legal provisions concerning access to information, participation in decision-making (e.g. consultation requirements) and access to courts Involvement of civil society is growing stronger Transboundary cooperation is getting more consolidated (in ORASECOM) Several alternatives and scenario’s are discussed Adoption of an M&E plan during project preparation In addition to technical and engineering sciences also for instance ecology and the social sciences are involved in defining
134
and executing the research Broad communication (between governments and towards public) River basin information systems are up to standards Costs are recovered from the ‘users’ by public and private financial instruments (charges, prices, insurance etc.) Private sector participation in river basin management Insurance mechanisms are available for harvest, housing and property damage, although not everybody can afford to pay for insurance Relative Weaknesses: In general, leadership is reactive; problems must first occur before taking action Capacity building programs are high on the agenda of DEAT and DWAF, but it is not enough for compensating the continuing loss of skills Implementation of water resources management plans is limited, mainly due to capacity problems and political priorities on economic development and povery alleviation. Solutions for short term problems are running a risk of causing more problems in the (far) future (20 years or more) Level of compliance to existing regulation is relatively low, mainly due to limited use of coercive sanctions as legitimate means of generating compliance in hierarchical context, neither in an institutionalized horizontal setting, e.g. with institutionalized horizontal coercion, shaming, and adjudication
7.6
COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE LEVELS OF POLICY LEARNING
The next step in this study is an assessment of the outputs of the management regimes under consideration. The outputs are being defined as the levels of policy learning in river basin management (being reflected and/or consolidated by adaptation strategies to deal with either floods or droughts). This section will present the results from literature review and expert judgment on the indicators defined in table 7.2. An overview of the results is presented in table 7.6. A more detailed description of the key characteristics of each strategy has been published in Huntjens et al. (2008). It should be taken into account that the management regimes may be currently in the process of developing climate change adaptation strategies to deal with floods and/or droughts. In other words, even when a new management regime has been established it may not have achieved its projected outputs (and/or outcomes) yet. Hence, the outcomes of these adaptation strategies are largely unknown at present. Most of them have only recently been introduced and there has not been enough time to test their appropriateness and effectiveness. Nevertheless, in this research we have been determining the drivers for developing the adaptation strategies and their initiation points, in order to be able to compare the time-scales and current state of affairs in climate change adaptation in the case-studies. Our first observation in comparing the strategies in different case-studies is that there seem to be different responses to drought and flood events: case-studies which have recently been confronted with floods have the most advanced strategies, while drought response/adaptation seems to be much slower. These differences might be explained by different risk perceptions (Green et al., 2007; Neuvel, 2004; De Hollander and Hanemaaijer, 2003) and differences in the availability of solutions. We also suggest that these differences might be explained by the nature of the problem itself, whereas flood management is determined by safety concerns, drought management is determined by water scarcity and related problems in the allocation of water resources. Moreover, we argue that the threat of floods might be perceived as more threatening and acute than the threat of droughts, since the latter is spread out of longer time periods and consequences are often felt indirectly. For example, in the Netherlands, the risk of drought problems and water scarcity caused by climate change is not acknowledged by all stakeholders (Huntjens et al., 2010; Neuvel, 2004). Nevertheless, perception of risks depends very much on the context, for example, in a river basin where agriculture is dominant and essential for food provision, and 135
drinking water provision is affected, droughts are perceived as very threatening. Going into another potential drought year (in 2010) Uzbekistan is currently very seriously and urgently trying everything to cope with the expected situation.
136
137
7.7
ASSESSING THE DOMINANT LEVEL OF POLICY LEARNING
This section will provide a brief summary of the adaptation strategies currently in place in all case-studies, and will analyze these strategies in terms of single loop learning (= ad-hoc problem solving), double loop learning (= reframing) and triple loop learning (= regime transition / paradigm shift). The conclusions have been based on the overview table of key characteristics of CC adaptation strategies (Table 7.6).
Table 7.7 – Assessment of dominant type of learning in the Room for Rivers-policy in the Netherlands. A more detailed description has been published in Huntjens et al. (2008).
CC Adaptation in Rivierenland in the Netherlands For a better understanding of which type of learning is dominant in each case-study it is useful to have a closer look at one specific case-study: Rivierenland in the Netherlands (see table 7.7). The Room for Rivers-policy is predominantly characterized by double loop learning with elements of triple loop learning. As a matter of fact, the Room for Rivers-policy appears to be the only strategy in this comparative study which clearly shows some elements of triple loop learning, such as a change in the regulatory framework (PKB, 2006), which consolidates a strategy based on climate change scenarios, and a change in paradigm from “fighting against water” towards “living with water”. Moreover, Rivierenland is one of the few cases (next to the Hungarian Tisza) where there is a clear influence from civil society on policy making. In the
138
Netherlands this is being reflected, for example, in the “Advice to the parliament as regard the PKB Room 46 for Rivers by nine civil society organisations” . This advice was for a large part incorporated in the final strategy. Moreover, the Room for Rivers-policy comprises entirely new management measures and new physical interventions (see table 7.7). Also structural constraints and uncertainties are specifically being addressed and dealt with, although the latter leaves room for improvement. For example, the rigidity of related policy (WFD and Natura 2000) – by strictly focusing on objectives – may be a limiting factor to other solutions. CC Adaptation in the Alentejo region in Portugal The Alentejo region in Portugal does not have a climate change adaptation strategy in place, neither at the national scale. The only strategy in place for dealing with droughts is the National Program for Water Use Efficiency, but this program is not related to climate change issues. In general, the strategies are dominated by single loop learning, meaning that all efforts are focused on improving existing measures, such as building larger reservoirs (e.g. Alqueva Reservoir). The general perception is that improvement of irrigation will solve all problems. However, the current irrigation system is seriously threatened because the current reservoirs (e.g. Alqueva Reservoir) are suffering from an increasing salinity, which will even become worse because temperatures and evaporation will increase due to climate change. Increasing tempratures will also lead to an increase in waterdemand by agricultural acitvites, which means that the total water volume in the reservoirs will get lower, resulting in an additional increase of salinity. Eventually, irrigation will be confronted with more and more saline water which will lead to irreversible damage to soil conditions, and thus threathens agricultural production. Even though environmental impacts assessments of the Alqueva Dam in 1992 have already been stressing that the situation in this region is unsustainable, the current management system has not been taking appropriate action up until today. Moreover, experts in the Alentejo region indicate that much faith has been put in the water 47 transfers of the EMFA-project , a project seen as a solution to all water shortages. However, these water transfers are expected to lead to serious negative environmental impacts, and even to violations of the EU Water Framework Directive and EU Habitat Directive (Platform for Sustainable Alentejo, 2005). CC Adaptation in the Ohre Basin, Czech Republic In the period after accession of the Czech Republic to the EU the Water Framework Directive represents the main tool for enforcing the water management policy, and as a result new water management planning has been launched in 2003. Climate change issues are being addressed in the Plan of Main River Basins of the Czech Republic (2007) - National Conception for Period 2007 – 2012. In general, the adaptation strategies in the Ohre Basin are dominated by double loop learning, although ad-hoc problem solving (single loop learning) may still be conceived as common sense in some instances. Nevertheless, spatial river basin planning with respect to appropriate land use change is a new management objective
46
Landelijke Initiatiefgroep Ruimte voor de Rivier, 2003, Meer waarden met een robuuste rivierruimte - Veiligheid, Ruimtelijke Kwaliteit en sociaal-economische vitaliteit 47
Empreendimento de Fins Múltiplos de Alqueva (EFMA): a plan for multiple uses of the Alqueva reservoir), a project which has been partially financed by the European Investment Bank (EIB) with loans totalling EUR 135 million
139
which reflects double loop learning, since it increases the boundaries for flood management. Additionally, the National Programme for the Reduction of Climate Change Impacts in the Czech Republic (by Ministry of the Environment, 2004), is explicitly considering climate change scenarios, and emphasizes the need to develop and implement appropriate adaptation measures in the relevant sectors including the water resource management sector. However, the translation into operational policy has not been taking place yet. CC Adaptation in the Ukrainian part of the Tisza The strategies in the Ukraine, specifically addressing the Tisza Basin, are predominantly characterized by single loop learning, which means that coping strategies are mainly defined by enhancement of existing measures, such as “classic” extensive structural measures (e.g. dyke strengthening). Additionally, some elements of double loop learning have been observed as well (e.g. increase boundaries for flood management by replacement of dykes and natural retention areas to reduce flood run-off). Nevertheless, entirely new management measures are scarce, and no signs of influence of a shadow network have been observed in the strategies of the Ukrainian part of the Tisza. The revised State Program for Flood Protection in the Ukraine has been planning new flood protection measures in the period 2002-2010, and after re-assessment of what is effective (which allows at the same time for reallocation of resources) there will be a new implementation plan for the period 2010-2015. However, the revised State Program for Flood Protection does not include any climate change scenarios. In other words, there is a serious risk that the implemented and planned flood protection measures are not effective enough for dealing with increased frequency and intensity of floods in the coming decades. CC Adaptation in the Hungarian part of the Tisza The strategies in Hungary (see table 7.6), specifically addressing the Tisza, are quite unique compared to the other case-studies. Despite the fact that the management system in this part of the Tisza is showing relative low scores on all regime elements, the strategies in place include a number of elements related to double loop learning or even triple loop learning, such as changes in the actor network and changes in the regulatory framework. The discrepancy between the current management system, which is a rather traditional, centralized regime, and its outputs (an advanced flood defense strategy) is probably caused by the existence of a shadow network in this specific case-study. The VTT is an excellent example of double loop learning and a modified flood defence strategy by local actors and research institutions. The VTT in Hungary is formulated in light of the possible impacts of climate change, having in mind the potential uncertainties. The importance of shadow networks has been highlighted by researchers in Hungary namely in flood protection, in flexible land and property management and in the formulation of the VTT as a flood defence strategy (Matczak et al, 2008). Nevertheless, the implementation of new Vásárhelyi Plan (2003) is seriously hampered, since the centralized management system has not managed to find agreement between different Ministeries on allocation of the necessary resources. Moreover, Jolankai et al. (2005) concludes that, based on the analysis of climate-change and precipitation scenarios, that higher floods than observed so far may occur, needing upgraded flood-control strategies (with the meaning that presently contemplated strategies, such as the VTT in Hungary, may not be sufficient to cope with floods). In conclusion, even though the Hungarian Tisza is an interesting example of the influence of an informal shadow network, it is especially this case-study were the expected outcomes of its adaptation strategies are largely unknown at present.
140
CC Adaptation in the Lower AmuDarya, Uzbekistan The adaptation strategies in the Lower Amudarya are characterized by ad-hoc problem solving, meaning single loop learning. The debate on climate change has largely remained confined to the scientific establishments and has hardly involved the common people who are possibly least aware of the gravity of the impact that this phenomenon will have in their lives. Adaptation to extreme events (e.g. droughts) does not take into account climate change scenarios, but merely involves short term weather forecasting by UZHydromet, and improvement of existing measures, such as enlargement of the storage capacity of delta floodplains, construction of polders (e.g. Mezhdureche reservoir), leakage reduction, more efficient irrigation, upgrading of the drainage systems, plans for increasing capacity of pumps, and on a local scale the main solution for dealing with droughts is to apply more organic fertilizers to increase humidity, and using hand pumps to get groundwater. In general, stakeholder participation in policy-making is very limited, and Kay Wegerich (2007) shows that since independence in Uzbekistan, the state’s influence on decision making over water allocation has grown rather than been reduced, while civil society is highly underdeveloped. CC Adaptation in the Kagera Basin (Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania) Although all countries in the Kagera Basin have ratified the UNFCC and have been developing National Action Programme for Adaptation (NAPA’s), the NAPA strategies lack a clearly defined climate change vision. There are no clear actions at national and regional level except reforestation campaigns and river basin management and development under NBI. Adaptation strategies have to be improved and a strategy for resource mobilization developed. The debate on climate change has largely remained confined to the scientific establishments and has hardly involved the common people who are possibly least aware of the gravity of the impact that this phenomenon will have in their lives. Also some experts in the field, such as water managers and policy makers, are not yet aware of the problem or do not acknowledge the link of climate change to water management. The current policy-making in the countries of the Kagera Basin is predominantly characterized by ad-hoc problem solving, meaning single loop learning. Politicians seem to have other political priorities than climate change, although scientists expect serious negative consequences for food security. So far, current river basin management mainly consist of improvement of existing measures, such as early warning systems for droughts, maintenance and enhancement of water storage, adjustment of planting dates and crop varieties, terracing and contouring is widely done in the catchment, reforestation campaigns (especially at hill tops), and expanded use of rainwater harvesting (e.g. by Rwanda Rainwater Harvesting Association). Nevertheless, there are some promising initiatives as regards transboundary cooperation, since the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) is bringing countries together for development of sustainable resource management for the Kagera Basin (By NELSAP - Kagera Transboundary Integrated Water Resources Management & Development Project). However, a Common Framework Agreement (CFA) between the countries has not been approved yet. At the same time, Uganda has started some experimentation on IWRM, and GEF funded Rwanda for Integrated Management of Critical Ecosystems (IMCE). Additionally, involvement of civil society is slowly increasing, for example by means of the Nile Basin Discourse Forum (NBDF) in each separate country of the Kagera Basin (www.nilebasindiscourse.org), although a clear influence of an informal network on policy-making has not been observed yet. 141
CC Adaptation in South Africa The current strategies in South Africa (see table 7.6) are partly characterized by single loop learning, which means that coping strategies are defined by enhancement of existing measures, such as optimising the current system of large storage dams and interbasin water transfer schemes and related infrastructure. However, in the strategies you can also find some elements of double loop learning (e.g. contingency planning for extreme events such as floods and droughts, flexibility in water use allocations, water demand and conservation mechanisms, and collaboration across national boundaries in the Orange Basin). However, at this moment strategies in SA do not take into account climate change scenarios in current policy-making, although good CC scenarios are available (IPCC downscaled). Moreover, although the National Climate Response Strategy (2004) is opting for a wide range of possible adaptation measures the translation of this strategy into operational policy has not occurred yet, mainly due to current institutional arrangements, extreme lack of skills and human capacity, and the traditional notion of water management which hampers implementation. In general, current research in SA suggests that the political and planning response is lagging behind compared to the understanding of climate change (Mukheibir, 2007). Table 7.8 - A summarized overview of outcomes being used for mvQCA (see chapter 5). This overview is based on the last row of Table 7.6.
Case ID
Type of learning which is dominant
Rivierenland (Netherlands) Alentejo (Portugal) Ohre (Czech Republic) Tisza in Ukraine Tisza in Hungary Kagera (Ug/Tan/Rwa/Bur) AmuDarya (Uzbekistan) Upper Vaal (South Africa)
Double/triple loop learning Single (ad-hoc problem solving) Single/Double loop learning Single (ad-hoc problem solving) Single/Double loop learning Single (ad-hoc problem solving) Single (ad-hoc problem solving) Single/Double loop learning
Binary outcomes 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1
7.8 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REGIME CHARACTERISTICS AND THE LEVEL OF POLICY LEARNING (QCA MODEL) To supplement the results of the correlation tests, this section introduces results from a method known as qualitative comparative analysis (QCA), which is based on Boolean comparative logic (Ragin, 1987, 2008). This method compares different combinations of independent variables in relation to a dependent variable, and then simplifies the causal conditions using a bottom-up data reduction process (see Chapter 5 for a detailed description of this method). The specific objective for using multi-value QCA (mvQCA) in this paper is to identify how different types of interactions among many independent variables in AIWM are related to an outcome of interest (= level of policy learning in river basin management). Our method allows different causal models leading to a particular outcome, meaning that we are not looking for a blueprint in water management systems.
142
The Truth Table (table 7.9) shows a summary of both the different combinations of input values (independent variables) and their associated output values (the dependent variable). The output value is defined as the level of policy learning (see table 7.8). The data reduction process in the Boolean method is designed to reduce the possible combinations of variables associated with the dependent variable by identifying necessary and sufficient causes. Based on the results of 7 different models for data reduction (see Chapter 5) four condition variables have been left out in order to reduce the number of simplifying assumptions, resulting in a truth table with five causal conditions (table 7.9).
Table 7.9 – Representative Truth Table with five causal conditions.
Case ID Coop Rivierenland 2 Alentejo 0 Ohre,Upper Vaal1 Ukraine 0 AmuDarya 0 Kagera 0
Pol 1 0 1 0 0 1
Inf 2 0 2 1 0 1
Fin 1 1 1 0 0 0
Ris 1 1 1 0 0 0
Output 1 0 1 0 0 0
The most important observation at this point is that there seems to be some “logic” in the data shown in the truth table. For example, when the output is “1” there is a higher density of “1” and “2” condition values, while there is a higher density of “0” condition values when the output is “0”. This observation is consistent with our working hypothesis stating that a higher level of AIWM is showing a different response in coping with floods and droughts than case-studies with a lower level of AIWM. The response in the case-studies with a higher level of AIWM is different in terms of higher levels of learning, being reflected and/or consolidated in the adaptation strategies to deal with floods or droughts. Based on our Boolean minimization we can conclude that relatively high score on cooperation structures or information management are causal conditions leading to at least double loop learning in Rivierenland, Ohre Basin, and Upper Vaal. In the case-studies were these specific conditions are less developed - like the Alentejo (Lower Guadiana), Lower AmuDarya in Uzbekistan and Kagera Basin - the strategies are dominated by single loop learning (ad-hoc problem solving). Within this context, it is important to recognize that the ability to adapt in the individual countries may depend on the availability of financial and human resources, technologies, levels of education, available information, suitable planning and the overall infrastructure. It holds in general that the economically and socially more developed countries have disproportionately greater potential for adaptation compared to developing countries. Nevertheless, we can conclude that better integrated cooperation structures (including non-governmental stakeholders, governments from different sectors and different hierarchical levels), and advanced information management (including joint/participative information production, consideration of uncertainties, and broad communication) are the key factors leading towards higher levels of learning, being reflected and/or consolidated in more advanced adaptation strategies for dealing with floods or droughts (Huntjens, et al. 2008).
143
7.9
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Our findings correspond with the socio-cognitive theory of information systems (Hemmingway, 1998), since the management of content and the social involvement are highly interdependent and cannot be separated. This socio-cognitive dimension is being reflected in our research by the significant positive correlations between indicators for cooperation structures and information management. Moreover, our analysis of the relationship between regime characteristics and policy learning show that the structural conditions integrated cooperation structures and advanced information management are necessary prerequisites for supporting higher levels of learning within river basin management regimes, leading to more advanced adaptation strategies. In other words, it is in particular the socio-cognitive dimension of adaptive water management that is crucial for increasing the adaptive capacity of (new) governance regimes. In contrast to conventional conflict-oriented theories this research provides evidence that learning is an important source, if not the key source, of policy change. Within conflict-oriented policy theory, the nature of the mechanism or agent of policy change and the role of knowledge in that process remains unclear (Castles, 1990). As e.g. Folke et al. (2005) have pointed out; social learning is needed to build up experience for coping with uncertainty and change. They emphasize that “knowledge generation in itself is not sufficient for building adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems to meet the challenge of navigating nature’s dynamics” and conclude that “learning how to sustain social-ecological systems in a world of continuous change needs an institutional and social context within which to develop and act”. Knowledge and the ability to act upon new insights are continuously enacted in social processes. Our research presented in this paper provides strong empirical evidence that the social network of stakeholders is an invaluable asset for dealing with change. When looking at information management as an iterative process for the identification of information needs, and the development, exchange and usage of information, than the importance of involving all actors in this process becomes obvious. After all, the more divers this group of actors, and the more they interact, discuss and exchange, the more they learn from each other. Free access to, and exchange of, information and practical experience is crucial for supporting social learning and contributes to building trust between different parties (Mostert et al., 1999; van der Zaag and Savenije, 2000). Hence, by means of integrated cooperation structures (including non-governmental stakeholders, governments from different sectors and different hierarchical levels) it is possible to build a joint knowledge basis, where not only technical knowledge is being shared and used, but also social, political and process related knowledge. Hence, stakeholders need to be involved in monitoring and evaluation, in order to provide upto-date, relevant information on actual performance, and to build capacity to take action to modify policy design and implementation in the light of such information. Several authors have argued that monitoring and evaluation is especially important under conditions of uncertainty about the ex ante ‘correctness’ of policy decisions, and about capacities to implement policies as intended (Dunsire, 1986; Rescher, 1998; Sanderson, 2002). We can also conclude that management regimes characterized by a high level of top-down governance are dominated by lower levels of learning (= single loop learning / ad-hoc problem solving), such as the management regimes in the Alentejo Region, AmuDarya and Kagera Basin. This lower level of learning is being reflected and/or consolidated in less advanced adaptation strategies. Also the Hungarian part of the Tisza is characterized by top-down governance, although they have managed to develop an advanced 144
adaptation strategy (new Vásárhelyi Plan (VTT), 2003), probably caused by the existence of a shadow network in this specific case-study. The VTT is an excellent example of double loop learning and a modified flood defense strategy by local actors and research institutions. However, the current implementation of this plan is seriously hampered, since the centralized management system has not managed to find agreement between different Ministries on allocation of the necessary (financial) resources. In other words, a high degree of top-down governance and centralization seems to be a serious limiting factor in this case-study as well. Especially in river basins like the AmuDarya, Orange, Guadiana and Nile a higher frequency and intensity of droughts, in combination with higher temperatures, pose serious threats to food security. The management system in the Orange Basin is already more advanced in this respect since it shows a higher level of AIWM and more advanced adaptation strategies. However, capacity in the region is rapidly becoming a serious limiting factor (Huntjens et al., 2008). This is particularly evident in South Africa where the challenge of implementing water resources management plans is so large, but there has been a serious loss of skills. Capacity building programs are on the agenda of the South African government Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) and the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF),, but it has not been enough so far for compensating the continuing loss of skills. Hence, it is important to recognize that the ability to adapt in the individual countries may depend on the availability of financial and human resources, technologies, levels of education, available information, suitable planning and the overall infrastructure. It holds in general that the economically and socially more developed countries have disproportionately greater potential for adaptation compared to developing countries. For example in the Nile there is great willingness to be adaptive, but there are a number of structural constraints mentioned by the majority of experts in this case-study: 1) Problems in organizational setup related to horizontal and vertical integration; 2) Lack of human capital (people skilled and educated for certain tasks); 3) Low level of awareness among decision makers on climate change issues: how will climate change, what the impacts will be, which adaptation is needed?; 4) Lack of adequate financial resources for adaptation; 5) Lack of information and of exchange among the relevant actors; 6) Spatial and temporal uncertainties associated with climate change projections. The central thread being recognized in these structural constraints is again a combination of cooperation structures and information management. In other words, unless this region is able to make substantial investments and improvements in their cooperation structures and information management, hereby strengthening its adaptive capacity, they will not be able to cope with the serious threats posed by climate change. What is also important is that, based on our formal comparative analysis, the conditions policy development and –implementation, finances and cost recovery, and risk management, do not play the most central „causal“ role in explaining the level of policy learning (based on mvQCA in Huntjens et al., 2008). This observation suggests the need for further investigating whether these conditions may be considered as outcomes of an adaptation strategy. In that case it would support our assumption that the relationship between the management systems and its adaptation strategy is reciprocal, since the strategy itself is influencing the management system on its turn. This means that there could be many nonlinear feedback loops within the management regime itself, and the regime is in that sense creating its own enabling environment. We argue that this is the essence of triple loop learning. In other words, information management and cooperation structures seem to be crucial for moving towards structural 145
change, and they support innovative approaches which then will encounter structural constraints which need to be overcome. This would also imply that the sole focus on mobilizing finances is not leading to effective and presumably also not efficient outcomes. The essence of triple loop learning is being observed in regimes with a higher level of AIWM where the formal institutional setting is being altered by the demand for governance as regards (new developments in) water related problems, such as the impacts of climate change. Examples include the Dutch National Water Agreement (Nationaal Bestuursakkoord Water, 2002), leading towards the start of implementing the Room for Rivers-policy (PKB Ruimte voor de Rivier, 2006). Another example is the Hungarian National Drought Strategy (2004), which was developed based on severe droughts in Hungary in the past decade. Nevertheless, the complex interdependency as described above is only addressed to a limited extent in this research, but is very important to be taken into account by future research activities. Especially for analyzing dynamic or transitional systems it is essential to conduct longitudinal research. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the local stakeholders and experts in the eight case-studies, in the Czech Republic, Portugal, Hungary, Ukraine, South Africa, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Uzbekistan, and the Netherlands. The work was prepared under contract from the European Commission, Contract no. 511179 (GOCE), Integrated Project in PRIORITY 6.3 Global Change and Ecosystems in the 6th EU framework programme: the NeWater-project (www.newater.info). Furthermore, we thank two anonymous reviewers for the very useful comments to improve the quality of the paper.
146
CHAPTER 8
INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION 48 49
Public document
1
2
By Patrick Huntjens , Claudia Pahl-Wostl , Roland Schulze³, Nicole Kranz⁴, Jeff Camkin⁵, Louis Lebel⁶
12
University of Osnabrueck, Germany (
[email protected] /
[email protected])
³ University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa (
[email protected]) ⁴ Ecologic, Institute for International and European Environmental Policy, Germany (
[email protected]) ⁵ Centre of Excellence for Ecohydrology, Western Australian University, Australia (
[email protected]) ⁶ USER, Chiang Mai University, Thailand (
[email protected],
[email protected])
Abstract This chapter provides an evidence-based and policy relevant contribution to understanding processes of climate change adaptation in the Netherlands, Australia and South Africa. It builds upon the work of Elinor Ostrom on institutional design principles for local common pool resources systems. We argue that for dealing with uncertainties like climate change impacts (e.g. floods or droughts) additional or adjusted institutional design principles are necessary that facilitate learning processes. Especially since these governance systems are usually dealing with complex, open access and cross-boundary resource systems, such as river basins and delta areas in the Netherlands and South Africa or groundwater systems in Western Australia. In our case studies the jurisdictional and geographical scale but also the complexity and uncertainty related to the policy problem is larger. In this chapter we proposed and found empirical support for a set of nine institutional design principles for climate change adaptation in complex governance systems: 1) A robust and flexible process, based on transparency, transdisciplinarity and flexibility (e.g. organizational redundancy); 2) Equal and fair (re-) distribution of risks, benefits and costs; requiring engagement with, and strong representation of, groups likely to be highly affected or especially vulnerable; 3) Collective choice arrangements, to enhance the participation of those involved in making key decisions about the system, in particular on how to adapt; 4) Monitoring and evaluation of the process, providing a basis for reflexive social learning and supporting accountability; 5) Conflict
48
An adjusted and shorter version of this chapter has been submitted to Global Environmental Change
49
Huntjens, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., Schulze, R., Kranz, N., Camkin, J. (2009) Comparison of the processes for developing Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in the Netherlands, South Africa, and Australia. Conference Paper presented at the IARU International Scientific Congress on Climate Change (March 2009, Copenhagen), as a run-up to the United Nations Conference of Parties on Climate Change 2009 (COP15).
147
prevention and resolution mechanisms; 6) Nested enterprises as functional units to overcome the weakness of relying on either just large-scale or only small-scale units to govern complex resources systems; 7) Policy experimentation in a polycentric system with purposeful and coordinated activities (e.g. pilot projects) geared towards producing novel policy options; 8) An integrated approach/strategy tailor-made to local circumstances taking into account multi-levels, multi-issues, multi-perspectives and multi-resources; 9) Policy learning, through exploring uncertainties, deliberating alternatives and reframing problems and solutions. These institutional design principles provide useful support for a “management as learning”-approach when dealing with complexities and uncertainties. This approach does not foster a narrow blue-print style but rather the opposite locally-appropriate institutions treated as experiments. This chapter concludes by providing several potential uses in practice for the proposed design principles, for example as diagnostic tools, and/or for exploring new, and refining existing adaptation strategies and for planning agencies, community-based organizations and the private sector interested in working with other stakeholders in pro-active approaches to adaptation. Key words: climate change adaptation, institutional design principles, floods, droughts, Netherlands, South Africa, Australia Acknowledgements: We would like thank the following persons for providing feedback on earlier versions of this chapter: Elinor Ostrom, John Grin, Dave Huitema, Katrien Termeer, Ed Hauck and Chris Moseki. Furthermore, we would like to thank the 30 stakeholders/experts in the Netherlands, South Africa and Australia who were willing to share their knowledge and experiences as regards the climate change adaptation processes they were involved in.
8.1
INTRODUCTION
Whilst considerable attention has been paid to the mitigation agenda in recent years, it is increasingly recognized that we also need to be planning to adapt to the challenges and opportunities that a changing climate will bring. Managers and policy makers responsible for water and environment related issues are under pressure to respond to the unprecedented impacts of climate change such as larger floods, more severe droughts, sea level rise, coastal erosion, ecosystem degradation and reduction of ecosystem services, water supply shortages, increase and new forms of pollution and water related diseases. Current institutional arrangements are often insufficient to manage these new challenges adequately and innovative and adaptive ways of governing water are required. Adaptation to climate change is defined by Adger et al. (2005, p.78) as: “An adjustment in ecological, social or economic systems in response to observed or expected changes in climatic stimuli and their effects and impacts in order to alleviate adverse impacts of change or take advantage of new opportunities. Adaptation can involve both building adaptive capacity thereby increasing the ability of individuals, groups, or organisations to adapt to changes, and implementing adaptation decisions, i.e. transforming that capacity into action. Both dimensions of adaptation can be implemented in preparation for or in response to impacts generated by a changing climate.” If one takes into consideration that under present conditions climate variability is already important to successful management of water in many parts of the world in that it drives processes of local, national and regional adaptation (Palmer et al., 2008; Hallegatte, 2009), then climate change adds to the existing complexities of achieving just socio-economic development which involves multiple uses of water among growing numbers of users in ways that are both fair and sustainable (Lebel 2007, 2009). Pro-active integration of climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and sustainable development strategies is often needed. However, we know, as yet, little about the ‘politics’ of how strategies actually work, e.g. in regard to trust building, conflict resolution and the way in which different interests are weighed against 148
each other. This paper builds on earlier empirical work as well theoretical notions from the literature in order to develop a framework, which relates the notion of adaptation to institutional design principles. It then develops these notions through drawing on experiences from water users and managers in three very different case-studies in the Netherlands, Australia and South Africa. Climate change will test not only the resiliency of ecosystems but also the adaptability of individual cities, villages and societies. This is also the reality in the Netherlands, Australia and South Africa, which are all confronted by changing flood and drought regimes (Schulze, 2005; Jones et al., 2006; KNMI, 2006; Berti et al., 2007). This paper intends to contribute to evaluating strategies and conditions for responding more directly to adaptation challenges. This paper will focus on policy changes at the national and/or sub-national level, more specifically, on the initiation and development of climate change adaptation strategies for dealing with floods and droughts in the Netherlands, Australia, and South Africa. The overall objective of this paper is to identify institutional design principles for climate change adaptation. By comparing the process of developing three climate change adaptation strategies, this research intends to build empirical support for identifying and understanding institutional design principles for climate change adaptation.
8.2
INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Research on institutions has not produced many concrete answers to one crucial challenge: how to facilitate institutional change despite massive inertia and opposition without imposing external blueprints and thereby ignoring the intricacies of local conditions (Evans 2004, 2005). The issue is not whether the blueprint is domestic or foreign but the fact that a blueprint approach is pursued. Adaptation to climate change represents specific challenges for institutional dynamics – uncertainties, conditions beyond envelope of historical experience and heterogeneous local impacts and capacities to respond. Instead of trying to search for the single, optimal, set of rules we agree with Ostrom on the importance of studying the underlying designs of those real-world experiments that have proved to be robust over time (Ostrom, 1990; Ostrom et al., 2007). Ostrom’s approach was to derive design principles from analyzing the management of local, commonpool resources (CPR) like irrigation water. When one member of a group uses a common pool resource it is not available for others in that group and it is possible for members of the group to stop others getting access to it (Ostrom, 1990). She came up with eight design principles: 1.
Clearly defined boundaries;
2.
Proportional equivalence between benefits and costs;
3.
Collective choice arrangements;
4.
Monitoring;
5.
Graduated sanctions;
6.
Conflict-resolution mechanisms;
7.
Minimal recognition of rights to organize;
8.
Nested enterprises
149
The design principles for sustaining long-enduring, common pool resource systems on a local scale and those for establishing or sustaining a governance system to deal with the impacts of climate change in a complex, open access, cross-boundary resource system may be expected to be distinct for several reasons (e.g. Healey, 1997, 2003; Amineh & Grin, 2003; Rotmans, 2005; Grin, 2006; 2008). First complexity is substantially increased since water resources usually must be managed across different time-frames and at different scales (local, regional, national, international). Second, an in contrast to traditional planning for infrastructure, governments and stakeholders at all levels need to be flexible under changing conditions when determining adaptation policies and measures, especially since climate change and its impacts are uncertain. Conceptually, the core requirement will be to develop institutional structures that are robust and flexible under changing and uncertain conditions. Overall, institutional design principles will need to be expanded or shift away from notions of optimization and efficiency toward concepts such as resilience and flexibility (Moench & Stapleton, 2007). Further empirical research is needed to explore novel or refined institutional design principles for adaptation processes at multiple levels.
8.3
STRATEGIES AND INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS
Table 8.1 provides an overview of the key institutional features of the adaptation strategies being analyzed in the Netherlands, Western Australia and South Africa. These three very different case-studies were selected because all three are being confronted by changing flood and drought regimes (Schulze, 2005; KNMI, 2006; Berti et al., 2004). Additionally, other empirical studies (see Huntjens, et al., 2010, and chapter 7) concluded that these case-studies were having relatively more advanced adaptation strategies than other case studies, thus providing a better justification for analyzing them, especially when trying to identify institutional design principles for climate change adaptation. Netherlands Throughout the centuries, space for the rivers in the Netherlands has become more limited. Rivers are wedged between high dikes, while the level of the land behind them drops. If a flood would occur under these conditions, the economic and emotional damage would be huge. With anticipated climatic changes the Rhine delta river branches will have to accommodate ever-higher extreme discharges. Until recently it was standard policy to raise the crest levels of the dikes to maintain the required level of flood protection. This centuries-old policy was abandoned in 2000. The Dutch water policy (Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, 2000) recognizes that in the coming years increasing water levels in the rivers and the accelerated rise in sea levels will mean that technical measures, such as raising dykes, will no longer be sufficient. The Dutch Cabinet created a package of measures to make “Room for the River” called the Spatial Planning Key Decision (SPKD). The new policy was approved by Parliament in 2006. The policy presents an integrated spatial plan for the entire area related to the Rhine delta. In the new policy, river cross-sections are widened by situating the dikes further away from the river, or by lowering the river forelands. This will result in lower flood levels. By the year 2015 the Rhine branches 3 should be able to safely discharge 16,000 m /s. At the same time, all measures should fit into long term objectives, that is, by the end of this century the river may have to safely accommodate 18,000 m3/s at 3 Lobith, and 4600 m /s for the Meuse. This means that spatial requirements for the long-term 150
accommodation of major floods, as a result of expected climate changes, will remain available. All measures to be implemented in the short term need to be consistent with this long-term view (the socalled ‘no regret’ type of measures). With this objective in mind the project has also identified measures 3 to adapt to climate change in 2100 with a river discharge of 18,000 m /s. Spatial developments in the region (present and future) have been taken into account. The measures implemented to achieve the above will also improve the quality of the environment of the river basin. In giving ‘Room for the River’ care should be taken not to affect valuable features of the landscape, nature and cultural history. More space can also be found by enlarging the river channel within the dikes. In the process, one should aim at a balance between present and foreseeable future spatial requirements, keeping an open eye for every opportunity to enhance safety as well as the master landscaping and the improvement of overall environmental conditions.
Table 8.1
Key institutional features of the adaptation strategies being analyzed in the Netherlands, Western Australia and South Africa
Key features
Netherlands (NL)
Western Australia (WA)
South Africa (SA)
Key drivers
- 1993 and 1995: Extreme peak discharges in Rhine and Meuse rivers > Although no dyke breaches have occurred there was a preventive evacuation of 150.000 people; - EU policy, in particular the Water Framework Directive (2002)
- Perth’s Water Future (1995) mentions that WA could move into dryer climate; - 1997: Water Corporation decides to use short term instead of long term historical records for planning purposes; - Severe droughts in 1998 and winters of 2001-2002
Focal policy
Room for Rivers policy initiated in 2000, leading towards Spatial Planning Key Decision (PKB) in 2006
Three successive strategies: - State Water Strategy (2003); - Security through Diversity Strategy (2005); - State Water Plan (2007)
Time period Key objectives
2000-2009 1) in 2015 the Rhine branches will safely cope with an outlet capacity of 16,000 cubic metres of water per second; 2) the measures implemented to achieve the above will also improve the quality of the environment of the river basin; 3) the extra space the rivers will need throughout the coming decades subsequent to expected climate changes, will remain available
2000-2009 Objective of the State Water Strategy was to ensure a sustainable water future for all Western Australians by: 1) Improving water use efficiency in all sectors; 2) Achieving significant advances in water reuse; 3) Fostering innovation and research; 4) Planning and developing new sources of water in a timely manner; and 5) Protecting the value of water resources
Related policies
- Nationaal Bestuursakkoord Water (2003); - Vierde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening Extra (VROM, 1992); - National Spatial Strategy (‘Nota Ruimte’, VROM, 2004); - EU Water Framework Directive; - EU Habitat Directive; - EU Common Agricultural Policy; - EU Flood Directive
- National Water Initiative (2005); - WA Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914; - WA Planning and Development Act (2005); - Environmental Protection Act (1986)
- Climate stress, effects of climate change are increasingly noticeable in terms of increasing scarcity and extreme events; - International discourse on climate change adaptation; - Implementation and capacity are both a problem which is a motivation; - Food security is at stake SA National Climate Change Response Strategy (2004), including Water Sector Climate Change Strategy (DWA), and National Climate Change R&D Strategy (DST) 2000-2009 1) Strategic resource management; 2) Flexibility in water use allocations; 3) Water demand and conservation mechanisms; 4) Contingency planning for extreme events such as floods and droughts; 5) Communication; 6) Optimizing the operation of existing infrastructure and 7) Constructing new infrastructure. - National Water Act (1998); - National Water Resources Strategy version 1 (NWRS1) in 2005, and version 2 (NWRS2) in 2009 - National Environmental Management Act (1998)
151
Key responsible authorities
- Room for Rivers policy has been initiated by the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management; - Coordinating responsibilities were assigned to provincial level instead of national level
- Premier’s Office; - Department of Water (est. in 2006), formerly known as State Water Department; -Water Cooperation
- Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF), which is now Department of Water (DWA); - Department of Science and Technology (DST)
Completion of a basic package of about forty projects is foreseen for 2015, with a budget of €2.2 billion. The SPKD Room for Rivers can be considered the final stage (centrepiece) of a fully developed climate change adaptation strategy for dealing with floods. It is important to acknowledge that its primary focus is on the mitigation of floods risks, while drought risks are not explicitly considered. Nevertheless, some measures in the PKB Room for Rivers may contribute to drought mitigation as well (e.g. retention areas). Australia The State of Western Australia (WA) covers approximately one-third of the Australian mainland and includes climate regions ranging from tropical to desert to Mediterranean. The southwest of WA, which has a Mediterranean climate, has experienced a pattern of reduced rainfall and even greater reductions in streamflows since the late 1970s. Droughts in 1998, and especially in 2001-2002, have triggered unprecedented action in water management. Climate change projections are that the recent (first decade of 21st century) dry conditions in the southwest, which have also been experienced in many other parts of southern Australia, are likely to continue. Projections for further declines in runoff from catchments indicate that the southwest is expected to receive 5% to 40% less runoff in the 2030 period relative to 1990 (Jones et al., 2006; Berti et al., 2007). At the same time, WA has experienced rapid population growth. By the mid-1990s climate change impacts on the State’s water resources were recognized and management action initiated to address some of those impacts. We analyze the process of developing three successive strategies for dealing with current and future challenges posed by climate change, increasing demand and declining water availability in the southwest of WA. The first, the State Water Strategy, was published in 2003 by the WA Government. The second, Security through Diversity Strategy, was published in 2005 by the Water Corporation of WA, a wholly government owned corporation responsible for most of the State’s public water supply, wastewater, drainage and irrigation bulk water supply services. The third, the State Water Plan, was published in early 2007 by the WA Government. In 2002, the WA Government convened a series of 17 public water forums in the Perth metropolitan area and southwest regional areas. These discussion forums aimed at presenting information to the community and eliciting their views and ideas on dealing with water challenges. Output from these community forums and expert presentations were provided to delegates at a Premier’s Water Symposium on 7-9 October 2002. In this Symposium, 100 delegates made up equally of experts, participants in the public water forums and invitees drawn randomly from the electoral role, sat in the Legislative Assembly building of the WA Parliament for three days debating key water issues. These deliberations informed the preparation of the State Water Strategy, published by the WA Government in February 2003. The key objective of the State Water Strategy was to ensure a sustainable water future for all Western Australians by: 1) Improving water use efficiency in all sectors; 2) Achieving significant advances in water 152
re-use; 3) Fostering innovation and research; 4) Planning and developing new sources of water in a timely manner; and 5) Protecting the value of water resources (Government of Western Australia, 2003). The Strategy called for strong community, government and industry partnerships. A prominent feature of the Strategy was that it recognizes the regional diversity of WA and called for tailor-made measures and targets for different parts of the State. Between 2003 and 2005 an iterative and participatory policy cycle built on the State Water Strategy. In 2005 the Water Corporation released a Security through Diversity Strategy, which was a more detailed, consolidated and multi-faceted approach to meeting the water supply needs of the southwest of WA. In 2007 the WA Government released its first State Water Plan. This Plan provides a strategic policy and planning framework to plan and manage water resources in WA. Additionally, it outlines the existing knowledge of water resources, describes their intrinsic value to the environment, local and indigenous communities and their importance as a foundation for economic prosperity (Hauck et al., 2007). Regional Strategic Water Plans are to be prepared, consistent with the State Water Plan, to provide more detailed guidance on water management planning and policy at a more local level. South Africa In the South African case study, the emergence of two policies related to addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation are investigated. The first process is the development of a water sector climate change strategy under the mandate of the national Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF, now the Department of Water and Environmental Affairs, DWEA). This process has been carrying on for a number of years now and has received varying support, resulting in oscillating momentum over the years, but with new impetus as of 2008/9. The second strategy revolves around the activities of the Department of Science and Technology (DST), which is overseeing the overall portfolio in South Africa in terms of research and development in regard to climate change science as well as adaptation and mitigation. These two strategies are interlinked to some degree in the sense that results generated in research are determining many decisions taken in the set-up of the water sector strategy. They both draw on the South African National Climate Change Response Strategy, a policy document coordinated by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, DEAT (DEAT, 2004), and which is directed at offsetting South Africa’s vulnerability to climate change, inter alia in the water sector through resource management and contingency planning, and also by adaptation in water related sectors such as rangeland management, agriculture, forestry, health and biodiversity. They both take cognisance of the South African National Climate Change Response Strategy (NCCRS), a policy document coordinated by the then Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, DEAT (DEAT, 2004; now Department of Water and Environmental Affairs, DWEA), and which is directed at offsetting South Africa’s vulnerability to climate change, inter alia in the water sector through resource management and contingency planning, and also by adaptation in water related sectors such as rangeland management, agriculture, forestry, health and biodiversity.
153
The NCCRS of South Africa (DEAT, 2004) identifies a number of approaches to water resource management which will facilitate adaptation to climate change. These are broadly divided into: 1) Strategic resource management; 2) Flexibility in water use allocations; 3) Water demand and conservation mechanisms; 4) Contingency planning for extreme events such as floods and droughts; 5) Communication; 6) Optimizing the operation of existing infrastructure and 7) Constructing new infrastructure.
8.4
RESEARCH METHODS
The primary data sources were documents about the process events, water policies and other project plans, and interviews with participants or conveners involved in their preparation, implementation and follow-up. In all three cases the authors were involved as experts during the adaptation process, although the cases were compiled post-hoc. For each case study we undertook 10 extensive interviews with stakeholders representing ministries, water authorities, planners, academic institutions and civil society. The interviews were conducted using a standardized set of questions to elicit design principles, while analyzing different stages of strategy development. The interviewees in each case study were selected because they had been closely involved in the process of developing the selected strategy. An effort was made to select a mixture of experts to provide a fair representation of the key interests involved in the processes being analyzed. During the interviews we discussed for each design principle the extent to which that specific aspect was similar or different when talking about (the processes of) climate change adaptation in the countries under consideration. The results of our interviews were evaluated against empirical evidence as well as theoretical assumptions in the fields of environmental economics, public administration, political science, spatial planning, environmental studies and climate change adaptation. The complexity of adaptation to climate change problems demands such an interdisciplinary approach (Conklin, 2005).
8.5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
We used the original design principles of Ostrom (1990) as point of departure for our analyses. However, we argue that for dealing with uncertainties like climate change impacts (e.g. floods or droughts) additional or adjusted institutional design principles are necessary that facilitate learning processes. This conclusion is quite plausible, since these governance systems are usually dealing with complex, open access and cross-boundary resource systems, such as river basins and delta areas in the Netherlands and South Africa or groundwater systems in Western Australia. In our case studies the jurisdictional and geographical scale but also the complexity and uncertainty related to the policy problem is larger than in most of the studies on which Ostrom’s design principles were based. In this paper we propose and provide empirical support for a set of nine institutional design principles for climate change adaptation in complex governance systems (see table 8.2).
154
Table 8.2 Institutional design principles for climate change adaptation in complex governance systems
Design Principle
Explanation
Robust and flexible process
based on transparency, transdisciplinarity, and flexibility (e.g. organizational redundancy); requiring engagement with, and strong representation of, groups likely to be highly affected or especially vulnerable; to enhance the participation of those involved in making key decisions about the system, in particular on how to adapt; providing a basis for reflexive social learning and supporting accountability; including timing and careful sequencing, transparancy, trustbuilding, and sharing of (or clarifying) responsibilities; (in a multi-level context), as functional units to overcome the weakness of relying on either just large-scale or only smallscale units to govern complex resources systems; a purposeful and coordinated activity (e.g. pilot projects) geared to producing novel policy options; taking into account multi-levels, cultural/historical circumstances, multi-issues, multi-perspectives and multiresources; through exploring uncertainties, deliberating alternatives and reframing problems and solutions
Equal and fair (re-)distribution of risks, benefits and costs Collective choice arrangements Monitoring and evaluation of the process Conflict prevention & resolution mechanisms Nested enterprises / polycentric governance
Policy experimentation An integrated approach/strategy tailor-made to local circumstances Policy learning
Compared to the original design principles of Ostrom (1990) there are two principles which have not been explicitly mentioned in our analyses in this section: I) Minimal recognition of the rights to organize; and II) Graduated sanctions (see also Ostrom, 2005: 259). This does not mean that they are irrelevant, but in our view they do not explicitly characterize the processes for developing adaptation strategies in our specific case studies. However, for other geographical areas or sectors these principles might be more relevant, and when underdeveloped or omitted this might lead to governance problems. For the process of developing climate change adaptation strategies in our case studies we found that other design principles are more appropriate. Nevertheless, in our paper we consider the minimal recognition of the rights to organize as a precondition for collective choice arrangements (design principle 3). In case the rights to organize are not recognized it might lead to problems with collective choice, consensus orientation and conflict prevention or conflict resolution (design principle 5). As regards graduated sanctions we haven’t been able to identify specific sanctions related to the adaptation processes under consideration. Nevertheless, some issues of accountability and water integrity are being discussed under design principle 4 (Monitoring and evaluation of the process). In our opinion the principle of graduated sanctions is less relevant for (explaining) the design of adaptation processes in our case studies than it is for local common pool resources systems, as being analysed by Ostrom. We argue two important reasons for the relative unimportance of graduated sanctions. First, when a participant is being excluded from the participation process (as being a sanction) its interests (either financial or ideational) are at stake. Exclusion from the process would therefore be the most severe sanction for a participant, but this is generally avoided by process owners since it would also jeopardize the legitimacy and collectivity of the process itself. Moreover, such kind of sanction would be the result of conflict and thus the malfunctioning of design principle 5 on conflict prevention and conflict 155
resolution. In our case studies we found that design principle 5 was implemented effectively and we haven’t found any situations where stakeholders were being excluded from the process. Second, graduated sanctions become more important in the phase of implementation rather than in the phase of developing a strategy and plan of measures. Our analyses had a stronger component of developing strategies rather than sustaining long-term implementation. Furthermore, compared to Ostrom’s design principles we have identified three additional design principles which are important for adaptation processes in our case studies: a) Policy experimentation in a polycentric system; b) An integrated approach/strategy tailor-made to local circumstances; and c) Policy learning. All three additional design principles will be explained in more detail in the section below, where they become, respectively, design principles 7, 8 and 9. These additional principles are general patterns or principles, being mentioned or observed by interviewees, and being highlighted by comparing the results of our interviews. For design principle 9 on policy learning we have compiled additional information for determining the level of policy learning in the case studies. Design principles 1 to 8 all contribute, more or less, to policy learning, and may be regarded as mechanisms for facilitating policy learning. In the following sections we will provide the key observations in each case study. Table 8.3 shows an overview of the key characteristics and issues in regard to the institutional design principles for climate change adaptation in the Netherlands, Western Australia and South Africa.
Design principle 1 - A Robust and flexible process, based on transparency, flexibility and transdisciplinarity Starting with Ostrom’s first design principle of ‘clearly defined boundaries’ (1990: 259) one of the most important observations is that during adaptation processes in the Netherlands and Australia certain responsibilities and relationships were deliberately left open, resulting in a robust and flexible process. According to Ostrom (2005:258) the contemporary use of the term “robustness” in regard to complex systems focuses on adaptability to disturbances. Carlson and Doyle (2002:2538) describe this adaptability as “the maintenance of some desired system characteristics despite fluctuations in the behaviour of its component parts or its environment”. In this paper we relate the robustness and flexibility of the process to the capacity of the governance system to deal with change and disturbance, which is similar to the definition of adaptive capacity by Adger et al. (2005, p.78). Adaptive capacity reflects learning through knowledge sharing and responding to feedbacks (Folke et al., 2003; Olsson et al., 2004; Walker et al., 2004). Increasing the ability of systems to adapt, or building their adaptive capacity, is becoming an important consideration in the preparation of, and response to, climatic changes. Systems with high adaptive capacities can thus retain their integrity under a broader range of conditions compared with systems with low adaptive capacities (Smit and Wandel, 2006). In social systems, adaptive capacity refers to the ability to learn from mistakes (Adger, 2003) and to generate experience of dealing with change (Berkes et al., 2002), which in turn depends largely on the ability of individuals and their social networks to innovate (Armitage, 2005). Robustness and flexibility were deliberately introduced in the Room for Rivers process by a flexible and open project organization, meaning that there was no fixed allocation of tasks, responsibilities and
156
50
relationships between different stakeholders in the beginning of the process (Berenschot, 2007). This organizational redundancy was evaluated - by expert judgment in underlying research - as one of the success factors of this process, since it provided stakeholders more room to find their appropriate position and role in the process, and at the same time allowed for these positions and roles to change when necessary. This flexibility resulted, for example, in taking bottom-up initiatives for establishing national and regional process committees, representing important stakeholders. Another important element which supported the robustness and flexibility of the process in the Netherlands was a programmatic approach, including pilot projects and so-called ´decisions for exchange´ (‘inwisselbesluiten’ in Dutch). These ´decisions for exchange´ means that specific projects might be adjusted or replaced by better alternatives in a later stage of the process. In other words, the Room for River process offers the flexibility to include new initiatives when they apply to the boundary conditions. This approach provided more leverage for decision-making (Berenschot, 2007), and was a crucial instrument for avoiding delays in the decision-making process. The programmatic approach, decided upon by the National Steering Group in June 2004, has proven to be a successful recipe for realizing the program’s objectives. Such a flexible framework was necessary since various alternatives are, or will become available at a later stage, and will offer opportunities for regional development along the rivers, such as waterfront housing and recreational and nature developments. These measures have not as yet been selected because of the higher cost and longer procedures involved. To achieve these additional goals, cooperation and co-financing in public-public or public-private partnerships are required. The national government will facilitate or co-finance initiatives from private parties or regional governmental bodies such as municipalities. National procedures with supra regional and coordinating influence may apply to certain initiatives so the national government can smooth the often cumbersome path of public decision-making and of obtaining all required legal permits. The necessity for having a robust and flexible process, including organizational redundancy, is supported by the case study in South Africa (SA) where the process leading towards the drafting of the Water Sector Climate Change strategy was started within very clearly defined boundaries, viz. the Department of Water Affairs’ task team. This approach creates opportunities, but can also result in severe risks. On the one hand, there is a clear understanding about roles and responsibilities as to who is in charge of the issue. On the other, the strict initial focus on the Department to some degree has prevented the input from other government departments and the water sector as a whole, which are instrumental in capturing complex interrelations between different actors influencing overall water resources management. Thus the opening of the process to include other government departments, as well as academia and consultants, appears to be a vital step forward. At the same time the legal setting in SA already offers a certain degree of adaptability to perturbations of flows, since a unique feature in SA water legislation is the compulsory supply of streamflow for the ecological reserve (similar to the environmental flows-concept), not only during years of ‘normal’ flows, but also in times of drought when different rules apply. However, the
50
In this paper stakeholder includes all persons, groups and organizations with an interest or “stake” in an issue, either because they will be affected or because they may have some influence on its outcome. This includes individual citizens and companies, economic and public interest groups, government bodies and experts. Public includes all non-governmental stakeholders.
157
capacity to respond to and cope with water crises is becoming a major concern in South Africa, already at national level, but more so as one moves down to provincial and local levels. It has become common knowledge that significant technical de-skilling has occurred and continues to take place and that there is an increasing lack of institutional memory in the water sector. The prospect of climate change in South Africa may yet be a catalyst not only for increased capacity building, but also for government to seeing that existing water legislation is implemented and enforced. A downside of this flexibility and organizational redundancy might be a certain degree of obscurity regarding the responsibilities and management tasks of coordinating organizations, as was the case for the regional project offices in the Room for Rivers process (which were being co-supervised by the national project office and provincial authorities at the same time). Another disadvantage of organizational redundancy might be reluctance in taking initiatives and responsibilities by authorities or key stakeholders, or a lack of ownership of the process. These disadvantages can be mitigated when certain preconditions have been met a priori. For example, Verbout and Travaille (2008) have shown that pre-conditions for successful cooperation in Dutch water management are: 1) the existence of a shared sense of urgency; 2) a joint problem definition combined with a shared desire for finding a solution; and 3) the awareness of interdependence between different stakeholders. If one of these conditions is missing, it is still possible to continue collaboration, but it is likely that this collaboration will eventually collapse when interests and financial contributions appear on the agenda, or when external conditions change during the process (Verbout and Travaille, 2008). In the case of the Room for Rivers process these pre-conditions were present, and they laid the foundation for a process in which organizational redundancy was beneficial. While there was little controversy in WA in regard to a shared sense of urgency and joint problem definition, e.g. recognition of the decline in water availability, there was much more controversy about interdependencies between (semi-)governmental stakeholders and their responsibilities. Water reform has been an important part of the political landscape of Australia since 1994. In 1994, the Council of Australian Governments (CoAG) agreed on a water reform agenda which included, amongst other things: (i) the separation of resource management from water supply responsibilities (ii) specific allocations to the environment in water planning and (iii) increasing use of economic instruments in water allocation. The 2004 National Water Initiative (NWI), which was adopted by all Australian States and Territories, reinvigorated the water reform agenda by further increasing the focus on water planning, use of economic instruments for re-allocation and science inputs to water policy. The 2007 Australian Government National Plan for Water Security and the subsequent National Water Act 2007 clarified roles in water management, including a stronger role for the Australian government in allocating the water resources of the Murray Darling Basin. In WA, water resource management was separated from water supply functions on 1 January 1996 when the Water Corporation of WA was created as the major water service provider for the State and the Water and Rivers Commission was established as the water resource manager. A third organization, the Office of Water Regulation, was established with responsibility for regulating water service providers. Although the Water Corporation remains as the State’s main water service provider, functions associated with the other two organizations have changed several times and most are now the responsibility of the Department of Water.
158
In general, we can conclude that adaptation processes in our case-studies were characterized by a twofold ambition of developing practically relevant and scientifically sound knowledge, and thus stimulating a mutual relation between science and policy. A major challenge in bridging the science-policy gap is to stimulate mutual knowledge exchange and co-production of new practical and theoretical expertise and yet keep sufficient tension and confrontation for productivity, novelty and creativity (van Kerkhoff & Lebel, 2006). Some authors involved in the science-policy debate argue that a more effective and efficient fusion of the two worlds should be stimulated (e.g. Parson et al., 2003: 10; Arvai et al., 2006: 218), while others partly critique the two community / two worlds model (van Kerkhoff & Lebel, 2006). Transdisciplinarity as a science-policy approach was an important contributor to the robustness of the adaptation processes in the Netherlands, WA, as it was to a lesser extent in South Africa by means of interdisciplinarity. Transdisciplinary processes are conceived as a key element of societal capacity building, especially of developing socially robust knowledge (Gibbons, 2001; Thompson Klein, 2001; Scholz & Tietje, 2002). These processes are characterized by (a) joint problem definition, (b) joint problem representation, and (c) jointly initiating a process of problem solving. Obviously, processes of transdisciplinarity go along with public participation in knowledge production, knowledge dissemination and decision-making. The concept of public participation and the science-policy interface was strongly embedded in the adaptation processes of the Netherlands and WA (see also design principle 3 – collective choice arrangements). For example, the consultative groups in the Room for River process not only included scientists from different disciplines (e.g. civil engineers, spatial planners, hydrologists, economists, ecologists, environmentalists, etc), but also stakeholders from different governmental and nongovernmental sectors (e.g. water, agriculture, transport, tourism and nature conservation) and different levels of government (municipalities, provinces, ministries and water boards). This integration of national, regional and local interests, being supervised by provincial authorities (see also design principle 8 – Nested enterprises/polycentric governance), was a direct result of a decision by the Dutch Parliament in 2000 to establish an organizational set-up called “central-decentral interwoveness” (Berenschot, 2007), and according to an external evaluation it was one of the success factors of the Room for Rivers policy 51 (Berenschot, 2007). In WA the Indian Ocean Climate Initiative (IOCI) played a critical role in bridging science and policy practice, by supporting informed decision-making on climate variability and change. The IOCI started the debate on climate change adaptation from the grassroots level up, by connecting different research groups and informal stakeholder networks. These networks were characterized by strong commitment and strong leadership (pers. comm. with John Ruprecht and Ed Hauck) and contained a deliberate set of projects involving social interface, such as informal bilateral meetings with senior government officials and civil society representatives, facilitation of local water forums in 2002, media attention, presentations by international researchers, etc.
51
The IOCI is a partnership of the State, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), and the Bureau of Meteorology, formed by the WA Government to support informed decision-making on climate variability and change in WA.
159
In general, we can conclude that adaptation processes in our case-studies were characterized by a twofold ambition of developing practically relevant and scientifically sound knowledge, and thus stimulating a mutual relation between science and policy. The concept of public participation and the science-policy interface was strongly embedded in the adaptation processes of the Netherlands and WA (see also design principle 3 – collective choice arrangements). Transdisciplinarity (involving non-academic participants) as a science-policy approach was an important contributor to the robustness of the adaptation processes in the Netherlands and WA, as it was to a lesser extent in South Africa by means of interdisciplinarity (only involving academic participants). In the Netherlands it was in particular the programmatic approach, including pilot projects and so-called ´decisions for exchange´, some organizational redundancy in the beginning of the process, and the integration of national, regional and local interests (being supervised by provincial authorities), which proofed to be very succesful elements for the process of climate change adaptation.
Design principle 2 - Equal and fair (re-)distribution of risks, benefits and costs As stated by Edward Carr (2008:690): “no adaptation will result in equal outcomes for all”, and “the benefits and costs of any particular “adaptation” effort will not be distributed evenly through a social group.” However, this does not mean that institutional designs should not strive to achieve a fair and equitable (re-)distribution of risks, benefits and costs. It could prove to be one of the biggest challenges during processes of climate change adaptation. According to Elinor Ostrom (2005: 262) there should be a proportional equivalence between benefits and costs. This implies that the rules in use allocate benefits proportional to inputs that are required. According to Ostrom (2005: 271) the central question to policymakers is how we can clarify the relationship between the benefits received and the contributions to the cost of sustaining this system. Additionally, during the process of climate change adaptation we also argue the importance of a fair distribution of risks (see also Lebel and Sinh, 2007). According to Lebel and Sinh (2007, 2009) disaster risk reduction often means risk redistribution. Large differences in vulnerability among people are in part being created and reproduced through institutional apparatuses designed to reduce risks to certain subsets of the population. Some of the best examples relate to the protection of capital cities (Lebel and Sinh, 2007). The redistribution of risks among rural and urban areas, as well as among poor and wealthy people in urban areas, is a central theme of flood politics in many regions. We also know that much of what passes for institutional reform at the basin or State level to reduce risks of disaster might really be about redistributing risk away from central business districts and valuable property, rather than reducing risks to livelihoods of the poorest or most vulnerable (Manuta et al., 2006). This is tantamount to mal-adaptation. Based on our observations in the Netherlands, Australia and South Africa we argue that reducing the risks of exposure requires engagement with, and strong representation of, groups likely to be highly affected or especially vulnerable (see also Lebel et al 2008). During the Room for Rivers process in the Netherlands there were a large number of stakeholder design sessions, for example in the Noordwaard (in September 2003) and IJsseldelta (in April 2005), but also in WA during the local water forums in 2002. During these sessions those most at risk were given the opportunities to participate in reshaping and reducing the risks to which they are projected to be exposed. Scenario-based approaches proved to be helpful in handling uncertainties. For example, in the Netherlands the Environmental Impact Assessments (MERs) and Cost-Benefit Analyses (MKBAs) were very 160
important instruments for decision support, by ensuring proportional equivalence between benefits and costs of the proposed measures (Huntjens, 2004). An environmental impact assessment is required for many of the measures proposed in the SPKD Room for Rivers, giving local residents, authorities and other stakeholders the chance to have their say. Informed deliberation was critical to avoid inappropriate overreaction, for example, unnecessary relocations, as well as premature dismissals of risks. In WA, equitably allocating scarce resources and, conversely, burdens and involuntary risks, proved to be more of a governance rather than an engineering challenge. There are some examples were risks are not shared equally, for example, whereas the Water Corporation does minimize the risks for public water supply, the risks associated with private water supply are not necessarily minimized, since it has not been regulated that aggressively. Another example concerns the controversy as regards introducing water management charges in WA. In 2005, the Irrigation Review Steering Committee, comprising of government and non-government stakeholders, included a recommendation in its final report to implement water resource management charges. Fees were implemented in 2006 but subsequently removed when they were defeated in the upper house of the WA Parliament. One of the difficulties encountered with achieving consensus on introducing fees is that stakeholders were saying that any fees must result in improved service. But in reality the cost comes before the benefit, and the Government was criticized when it tried to roll the fees out on a statewide basis before any improvement in service took place. A better strategy might have been to roll out the package of fees and improved service on a regional basis. This balanced package approach was a key principle of the Irrigation Review outcomes in 2005. Also in 2005 a decision was required on the next major water source for Perth to boost supplies in light of declining streamflows and increasing dependence on Gnangara groundwater. The South West Yarragadee aquifer, 300 km south of Perth, emerged as the lowest cost option. Extensive groundwater and environmental studies undertaken over several years identified the likely impacts of utilizing this resource. Community consultation identified concerns in southwest towns on the transfer of water resources out of the region and the possible impact on key environmental assets. Government subsequently decided against developing the South West Yarragadee aquifer as a new supply for the integrated water supply scheme for Perth and associated centres. Instead, a 45 GL/y seawater desalination plant was constructed in the Perth Metropolitan Area. The decision to build a seawater desalination plant effectively made a trade-off involving a higher cost for urban and industry water supply with a future benefit to socio-economic values in the South West region. Benefits can be characterized as foregone impacts and retention of resources for future use. Additional desalination capacity also created scope for trade-offs involving less groundwater withdrawal from the Gnangara mound. Although Gnangara groundwater levels have declined due to a combination of groundwater use, diminished rainfall/recharge and land management, steps taken enable the reduction of groundwater use. A second 45 GL/y desalination plant is planned with expansion possible to 90 GL/y. General public reaction to further use of seawater desalination has been positive, in part because of the recognition of trade-offs that retain many values associated current water resources, even though a drying climate diminishes intrinsic resource values. In South Africa the design principle of equal and fair (re-)distribution of risks, benefits and costs is seen as very much a “first world concept “ to be answered in a developing country context, e.g. in a dual economy such as South Africa’s, there will always be cross-subsidization from the “haves” to the “have nots”. There 161
is, furthermore, in South Africa a strong moral component in the National Water Act (NWA) of 1998 in regard to redressing past (historical) inequities for the previously disadvantaged groups to be mainstreamed into the system of water allocation. Also, the question of water as an economic good in South Africa has to be weighed against water being a basic human right, with water for people being the first priority in the NWA (the “Human Reserve”). One needs to ask what the value is of having access to water, against the social and economic hardships of not having access to water. The contribution to costs in South Africa is therefore seen as only a partial one for the “haves” and largely a zero one for the impoverished communities. Certainly the concept of total cost recovery in the water sector in a relatively poor country (when compared against the Netherlands and Australia) with its highly variable climatic regime in reality remains a first world dream. As a refinement of this design principle, especially relevant for river basin management, it is important to consider the sharing of upstream-downstream costs and benefits. Retention areas, re-forestation, or other measures in the upstream parts of river basins involve people in locations remote from the places for which promises of protection are made. In other words, the downstream areas in a river basin are being influenced by physical interventions in the upstream areas of the same basin. According to Lebel et al (2009) interventions can shift the distribution of benefits or involuntary risks from one group to another. Adaptation may even exacerbate injustice, such as when actions in the logic of protecting national assets and interests render some disadvantaged groups even more vulnerable than they were previously. In the case of the Rhine, the development of retention areas, re-forestation programs and dyke replacements in Switzerland and Germany will lower the peak discharges in the Netherlands. Hence, it is important that the countries in the Rhine basin collaborate closely on flood protection, which is actually done under the umbrella of the Rhine High Water Action Plan. One objective set by the countries involved is to reduce the high water levels by an average of 0.70 m by 2020. All countries in the discharge basin are implementing appropriate measures, including those described in the SPKD Room for the River. The German state of Nordrhein-Westfalen, the Dutch province of Gelderland and the Directorate-General for Public Works and Water Management (Rijkswaterstaat) for the Eastern Netherlands studied the effects of extremely high water in the border region. The volume of Rhine water that could eventually reach the Netherlands was also estimated. The three parties then investigated which measures could potentially provide flood protection for both the Netherlands and Germany. What emerged here was that both countries place a high value on coordinating efforts to this end. Measures implemented in Germany, however, cannot adequately maintain the required level of protection in the Netherlands, but this can be achieved by the package of measures in the SPKD Room for the River. Although transboundary cooperation is ongoing there are technical and political uncertainties which are not that easy to cope with. An example of technical uncertainty is related to (the effects of) measures in upstream areas of the Rhine (in particular in Germany). Another uncertainty relates to the possibility of new measures on top of the existing implementation agenda. Whether this possibility becomes a reality is uncertain, since it might depend on political changes or the possibility of extreme events (e.g. floods in Germany). Also, the level of compliance by Germany to the (new) EU Flood Directive remains an uncertainty. These kind of interdependencies and uncertainties highlight the importance of specific mechanisms to facilitate the interaction such as new legislation (e.g. EU Flood Directive), joint research (which is being done by the Arbeitsgruppe) or new arrangements for sharing upstream-downstream costs and benefits.
162
At the macro-watershed scale, new institutional arrangements are needed to promote interaction among micro-watershed groups within large macro-watersheds. This would involve developing something like a ‘nested platforms’ approach at a macro-watershed scale. It could involve specific mechanisms to facilitate the interaction such as new legislation or new arrangements for sharing upstream-downstream costs and benefits. In conclusion, both in the Netherlands and WA we have seen examples where stakeholders at risk were given opportunities to participate in reshaping and reducing the risks to which they are projected to be exposed, e.g. in the Noordwaard (in September 2003) and IJsseldelta (in April 2005) in the Netherlands and the local water forums in 2002 in WA. Important decision support tools in the Netherlands and WA where scenario-based approaches, including environmental impact, risk or vulnerability assessments and cost-benefit analyses, which proved to be helpful, amongst others, in handling risks, vulnerabilities and uncertainties. In South Africa equal and fair (re-)distribution of risks, benefits and costs is seen as very much a “first world concept “ to be answered in a developing country context, e.g. in a dual economy such as South Africa’s, there will always be cross-subsidization from the “haves” to the “have nots”. In any case, based on our observations in the Netherlands, Australia and South Africa we argue that reducing the risks of exposure requires engagement with, and strong representation of, groups likely to be highly affected or especially vulnerable. This relates directly to the next section on collective choice arrangements.
Design principle 3 - Collective choice arrangements According to Elinor Ostrom (2005) most of the stakeholders affected by a resource regime must become authorized to participate in making and modifying their rules. Resource regimes that use this principle are both better able to tailor rules to local circumstances and to devise rules that are considered fair by participants. As environments change over time, being able to craft local rules is particularly important as officials located far away do not know of the change. It is important to acknowledge the importance of some basic conditions for collective choice arrangements to emerge and evolve. For example, in our case studies we have seen that there is a minimal recognition of rights to organize, since stakeholder participation is strongly embedded in respective laws. For example, in South Africa the process of stakeholder participation is strongly imbedded in the National Water Act, as well as within the Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs) envisaged. This means that the rights of users to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external governmental authorities (Ostrom, 1990), as long as they fall within the parameters of national legislation. While this basic condition was being met in our case studies this might not necessarily be the case in other countries. Hence, it is important not to gloss over this design principle before analyzing the existence of collective choice arrangements. In the Netherlands collective choice arrangements have become the centerpiece of the Room for River process. Some of these arrangements were specifically designed for this process, partly originating from a long history on consensus–oriented decision-making in the Netherlands (also called the Poldermodel). One striking feature of the Room for River process was a decision by Parliament in 2000 to establish an organizational set-up which integrated national, regional and local interests, with this being supervised by provincial authorities (see also design principle 8 – Nested enterprises). This organizational set-up is 163
termed “central-decentral interwoveness” (Berenschot, 2007), and was one of the success factors of the Room for Rivers policy (Berenschot, 2007). This decision contributed to consensual decision-making. The decentralised development of spatial plans for parts of the river basin was coordinated by provinces, and 52 was then consolidated by the regional advice (published on 14 March 2005) . The formal management track was supported informally in the form of consultative groups (klankbordgroepen), which included a variety of stakeholders. For example, the strong influence of civil society is reflected in the document called “Advice to the parliament in regard to the PKB Room for Rivers by nine civil society organisations” (LIRR, 2003). This advice was in large measure incorporated in the Final Spatial Planning Key Decision, taken by the Dutch Parliament in 2006. Furthermore, the Room for River process is characterized by the involvement of new stakeholders, such as private enterprises (e.g. project developers and companies related to exploitation of gravel and sand). Also, civil society organisations were involved more explicitly, such as the Organisation for Agriculture and Horticulture (LTO), the Royal Dutch Touring Club (ANWB), and environmental NGOs. These organizations were regarded as very important for grassroot consensus 53 building since they represent, inform and consult a large number of supporting members. Similar collective choice arrangements as in the Netherlands have been identified in WA. For example, in 2002 the WA Government convened a series of 17 public water forums in the Perth metropolitan area and southwest regional areas. These discussion forums aimed at presenting information to the community and elicit their views and ideas on dealing with water challenges. These deliberations informed the preparation of the State Water Strategy, published by the Government in February 2003. Also the State Water Plan (2007) involved consultation at all levels in the community to ensure that stakeholders and water users throughout WA were actively involved in steps to secure the States’ water future. The intent of this initiative, along with the formation of the new Department of Water in late 2005, was to consolidate a strategic water planning mechanism. Multi-stakeholder dialogues, including social learning processes, negotiation and co-production of knowledge are crucial for adaptation processes and are cross-cutting many of the design principles discussed in this article. In Lebel et al (2009) multi-stakeholder dialogues are defined as “events at which different stakeholders openly engage in facilitated, informed, deliberations”. The dialogues in the local adaptation programmes such as IJsseldelta Zuid (The Netherlands) and the 2002 Water Forums (WA) are 54 typical examples of such multi-stakeholder dialogues. The purposes (and values) of these dialogues were: 1) To reduce conflicts and explore synergies; 2) Explore alternatives, and; 3) Shape and inform negotiations and decisions. As was discussed in design principle 1 the science-policy interface is an important element of a robust and adaptive process, and multi-stakeholder dialogues provide an important tool for facilitating this. During these dialogues it is important to produce outcomes that are
52
On specific request from State Secretary (Vice Minister) for Water Management) Shultz van Haegen in December 2001. 53
The total number of supporting members of Environmental NGO’s in the Netherlands has increased 444% between 1980 and 2006. From: MD Weekly, 2 September 2008. 54
For a more detailed analysis of the multi-stakeholder dialogues in IJsseldelta Zuid (Netherlands) and the 2002 Water Forums in Western Australia see Chapter 11.
164
directly relevant for planning and decision making in the complex politics in which climate change adaptation takes place. Stakeholders should therefore be involved in all steps of analyzing and synthesizing project and process outcomes as well as identifying best practices for governance and implementation. In South Africa the process of stakeholder participation is strongly imbedded in the National Water Act, as it is within the Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs). However, the CMAs have been slow to evolve and it remains to be seen at what level genuine stakeholder participation will be. A crucial issue is the continued lack of administrative capacity, which is limiting the degree to which these consultative processes can be realized. For its strategy development, however, public authorities such as the DWEA and DST widely consult the scientific community. In the SA water context one has to make the distinction between the more “vociferous stakeholders” from powerful, well-resourced major sectors or interest groups (e.g. the commercial plantation forestry and sugarcane sectors in respect of streamflow reduction activities) who can employ specialist hydrologists, consultants and lawyers to plead their cases which are backed up by science, in contrast to the more “voiceless stakeholders” (who include the poor and the environment) whose cases are often pleaded with fewer resources and more emotion. The process of stakeholder participation in SA remains quite politicized – both in the former as in the present political dispensations, and de-politicizing it in an already stressed water sector is considered essential because water is a key resource for the sustainable development of the country. Stakeholder participation in a developing country such as SA, with a history of top-down governance and historically a strong paternalistic system among its indigenous people, is a long term educational and awareness-raising process. In the case of climate change, decision taking at the local level will be a key mechanism for adaptation because, while government can provide and facilitate adaptation policies and strategies, implementing adaptation to local conditions and/or with indigenous knowledge is something that, in essence, only the stakeholders on the ground can do. Outside the official processes, there is an emergent influence of shadow networks on the subject of climate change and its implications for the SA water sector, especially among the SA research community which is internationally well connected. In addition, there is an emerging community of nongovernmental organizations which is picking up on that issue. More recent forays have been triggered by recent revelations about mismanagement in the water sector, which have resulted in severe impacts on water resources due to pollution and over-abstraction. Ostrom (1990) convincingly shows that user communities of a common pool resource have the capacity for self-organization and self-governance and that there are many different viable combinations between the public and private sectors. Involving actors in the design of formal institutions is expected to increase compliance and effectiveness, but this may come at the expense of decreased efficiency since participatory processes are resource consuming (Pahl-Wostl, 2009). Nevertheless, while something is inefficient in the short term the reasons for that inefficiency (e.g. capacity building) may create a more efficient system in the longer term. Social learning processes often take considerable time and money of both water managers and the other stakeholders. Hence, social learning processes should only be embarked upon for issues that are important for the stakeholders, and not for relatively minor issues. An important research question is how to find an appropriate balance.
165
In conclusion, collective choice arrangements, in particular multi-stakeholder dialogues, have been at the center for developing climate change adaptation strategies in the Netherlands and WA. Multi-stakeholder dialogues, including social learning processes, negotiation and co-production of knowledge are crucial for adaptation processes and are cross-cutting many of the design principles discussed in this article. In SA the process of stakeholder participation is strongly imbedded in the National Water Act, as it is within the Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs), but collective choice arrangements are just recently becoming introduced in the process of climate change adaptation at multiple levels.
Design principle 4 - Monitoring and evaluation of the process, thereby supporting accountability In addition to Ostrom’s design principle of monitors, who actively audit CPR conditions and appropriate behaviour (Ostrom, 1990: 94), our case studies in the Netherlands and Australia highlight the importance of evaluation as a key institutional practice in interactive governance to provide the basis for reflexive social learning (see also Sanderson, 2002). Choosing proper descriptive indicators is essential to the process of evaluation and monitoring. The process of evaluation and monitoring serves to adjust the course of action and motivate those driving the processes. During the process of climate change adaptation, actions and objectives can then be adjusted based on reliable feedback from the monitoring programmes and improved understanding (Nyberg, 1999). In the Netherlands, the Room for Rivers process was evaluated by external auditors in 2007 (Berenschot and Technical University of Delft, 2007), who were given the assignment by the Ministry of Water Management. This evaluation was being made public in July 2007, and was followed by a statement by the responsible Minister ensuring that lessons and experiences would be used for further steps in policymaking and implementation (Ministry of Water management, 2007). From this angle, monitoring and evaluation proves to be an important tool for supporting accountability, ensuring that those in authority answer to the group they serve if things go wrong, and are given credit when things go well. In WA, monitoring and evaluation processes are embedded in various types of water management plans. Following WA’s signing the NWI, WA developed a NWI Implementation Plan which is monitored and evaluated by the National Water Commission. An interesting example of process and policy evaluation in WA is the ‘Irrigation Review’, which was a commitment in the State Water Strategy. The review committee took its terms of reference liberally and provided government with a comprehensive package of reforms. It didn’t replace the State Water Strategy reforms but build on them, providing a much more comprehensive and strategic rather than tactical response whereas the State Water Strategy was clearly a tactical response to major drought. The Irrigation Review informed the governance review, as well as later commitments from the Government, e.g. to sign the NWI. In contrast to our case studies in the Netherlands and Australia, South Africa is confronted with a dire situation with regard to accountability, over and above the country’s socio-economic problems. Next to the fact that monitoring and evaluation is more problematic owing to capacity problems and information gaps, the Public Service Accountability Monitor (PSAM) believes that a major obstacle to poverty alleviation in SA is poor governance, which includes not simply corruption, but also poor performance of government officials in their management of public resources and a lack of political will to act against 166
underperforming officials (Luyt, 2008). However, there are some promising examples where water integrity is being improved, by supporting a bottom-up approach to water services regulation through active involvement of citizens in the local monitoring of water and sanitation services, for example in four 55 townships of Cape Town and in the eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality (Durban, KwaZulu-Natal). It helps empower citizens to hold local government accountable through: 1) Training citizens about their rights and responsibilities, and then 2) Setting up “User Platforms” which serve as monthly meetings between the municipality and the community for ongoing civil society water services monitoring and problem solving. In conclusion, monitoring and evalution of the process in the Netherlands and WA has clearly contributed to an improved understanding and in some instances to an adjustment of the course of action, for example in the water reform process in WA, in particular in its response to droughts. An entirely new element of monitoring, in both the Netherlands and Western Australia, refers to the quality of the communication process in actor networks, the appropriateness of a chosen institutional setting. Monitoring and evaluation in South Africa is more problematic owing to capacity problems and information gaps.
55
http://www.waterintegritynetwork.net/page/2670
167
Table 8.3 - Overview of key characteristics and examples related to the institutional design principles for climate change adaptation in the Netherlands, Western Australia and South Africa Principle
Netherlands
Western Australia
South Africa
Robust and flexible process
- Organizational redundancy > no fixed allocation of tasks and responsibilities in beginning of the process > facilitating bottom up initiatives and flexibility; - Programmatic approach, including pilot projects and socalled ´decisions for exchange´; - Integration of national, regional and local interests, being supervised by provincial authorities; - Transdisciplinarity (involving non-academic participants) as a science-policy approach - Stakeholders at risk were given opportunities to participate in reshaping and reducing the risks to which they are projected to be exposed, e.g. in the Noordwaard (in September 2003) and IJsseldelta (in April 2005); - Scenario-based approaches proved to be helpful, amongst others, in handling risks & uncertainties, e.g. Environmental Impact Assessments and Cost-Benefit Analyses (MKBAs) as important decision support tools; - First steps in transboundary cooperation as regards sharing of upstream-downstream costs and benefits, e.g. in Rhine High Water Action Plan
- Water reform agenda since 1994; - Water resource management was separated from water supply functions in 1996; - National Water Act 2007 clarified roles in water management; - Transdisciplinarity (involving non-academic participants) as a science-policy approach
- Drafting of strategy started within very clearly defined boundaries (by DWAF), but no input from other governmental stakeholders and water sector as a whole; - Opening up of process was crucial for dealing with complexity; - Interdisciplinarity (non-academic participants were not involved so far)
- Stakeholder workshops, e.g. the local water forums in 2002, where those at risk were given the opportunities to participate in reshaping and reducing the risks to which they are projected to be exposed; - Extensive groundwater and environmental studies undertaken over several years, e.g. to identify the likely impacts of utilizing the Gnangara Groundwater System or South West Yarragadee aquifer > finally decided for climate independent option (= desalinization plant);
- Multi-stakeholder dialogues, e.g. stakeholder design sessions in IJsseldelta (in April 2005); - Organizational set-up which integrated national, regional and local interests, with this being supervised by provincial authorities; - Formal management track was supported by consultative groups (klankbordgroepen), which included a variety of stakeholders; - Strong influence of civil society reflected in the key spatial planning decision (PKB, 2006) - External evaluation of the Room for Rivers process in 2007 (Berenschot and Technical University of Delft, 2007); - Ministerial statement ensuring that lessons and experiences from evaluation are used for further steps in policy-making and implementation (Ministry of Water management, 2007)
- Multi-stakeholder dialogues, e.g. 17 public water forums in the Perth metropolitan area and southwest regional areas; - Above forums informed the preparation of the State Water Strategy, published by the Government in February 2003; - Also the State Water Plan (2007) involved consultation at all levels in the community
- In South Africa equal and fair (re-)distribution of risks, benefits and costs is seen as very much a “first world concept “ to be answered in a developing country context, e.g. in a dual economy such as South Africa’s, there will always be cross-subsidization from the “haves” to the “have nots”; - Strong moral component in the National Water Act (NWA) of 1998 in regard to redressing past (historical) inequities for the previously disadvantaged groups to be mainstreamed into the system of water allocation; - Concept of total cost recovery in the water sector in a relatively poor country like SA, with its highly variable climatic regime, in reality remains a first world dream. - Process of stakeholder participation is strongly embedded in the National Water Act, as it is within the Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs). However, the CMAs have been slow to evolve and it remains to be seen at what level genuine stakeholder participation will be; - There is an emergent influence of shadow networks on the subject of climate change and its implications for the SA water sector, especially among the SA research community which is internationally well connected
Equal and fair (re-)distribution of risks, benefits and costs
Collective choice arrangements
Monitoring and evaluation of the process
- Monitoring and evaluation processes are embedded in various types of water management plans; - NWI Implementation Plan is monitored and evaluated by the National Water Commission; - Irrigation Review informed the governance review, as well as later commitments from the Government, e.g. to sign the NWI
- Monitoring and evaluation is more problematic owing to capacity problems and information gaps; - Some pilots on active involvement of citizens in the local monitoring of water and sanitation services (e.g. in four townships of Cape Town and in the eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality (Durban, KwaZulu-Natal)
168
Conflict prevention & resolution mechanisms
- Programmatic approach, including ‘decisions for exchange’, was important tool for time sequencing by including proxies for longer-term objectives whose achievements are contingent on more immediate objectives being met; - Early and transparent information sharing and communication of uncertainties; - Sharing of responsibilities, e.g. masterplan for IJsseldelta Zuid initially caused a lot of resistance, but when provincial deputy asked the public to help him in finding alternatives and solutions the majority decided to co-operate instead of protest
Nested enterprises / polycentric governance
- Polycentric governance system was deliberately introduced by means of the National Spatial Strategy (‘Nota Ruimte’, VROM, 2004) > shift from a centralised towards a decentralised mode of governance; - Water boards (task-specific jurisdictions) are embedded in general purpose jurisdictions at multiple levels - Netherlands is the only case study with policy experimentation on climate change adaptation: - Near Avelingen a management experiment has been initiated to test how decision-making (on flood management plans) might be accelerated by means of timely involvement of stakeholders; - IJsseldelta Zuid, as a national pilot project for spatial planning; testing new methods and processes (e.g.
Policy experimentation
An integrated approach/strategy tailor-made to local circumstances
Policy learning
design sessions by stakeholders and citizens) to find imaginative solutions to predefined tasks of the Room for Rivers policy; - Overdiepsche Polder was a policy experiment in shifting the responsibility for planning from the national to provincial government in combination with extensive stakeholder participation - Multi-level, multi-sectoral and multi-perspective governance approach, e.g. for developing tailormade masterplans for the IJsseldelta, Noordwaard, Overdiepsche Polder, Hoeksche Waard, Waalweelde, etcetera
- Double loop learning, with elements of triple loop learning, e.g. change in regulatory framework + paradigm shift from ‘fight against water’ to ‘living with water’; - For more details see table 8.4
- 2002 water forums and Premier’s Water Symposium supported community awareness raising and knowledge transfer > These forums built considerable trust on which to first develop and then implement the State Water Strategy actions; - Centralization of responsibilities by Premier’s Office (in 2004) after policy conflicts between Water Corporation and Department of Water; - In a later stage, these responsibilities were shared again (but without overlap!), e.g. by National Water Act 2007 which clarified roles in water management; - Climate-independent option to deal with droughts (i.e. desalinization) removed part of the conflict - General purpose jurisdictions at multiple levels with specific departments focusing on water and climate; - All seven water regions of WA have developed their own regional water plans
- Water Tribunal is in place for water conflicts at all levels that cannot otherwise be resolved. Its use in conflict resolution at this juncture is, however, relatively limited; - Water sharing agreements between SA, Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Mozambique, Botswana and Namibia, but these may need to be revisited in light of projected changes in flow regimes; - Necessity for ‘out of the box’- thinking as regards upstream-downstream conflicts, e.g. hydropower in Lesotho might provide more water to downstream areas in return for food or other services;
- In WA three parallel planning processes are ongoing which deal with climate change (but each with different foci), viz. the Gnangara Sustainability Strategy, Water Forever, and the Perth Peel State Water plan. Each of these plans has a committee which tries to line up different planning processes; - Not directly related to CC adaptation but in WA there has been a major policy experiment on the development and application of sustainable development principles at the neighborhood level; - Policy experimentation is not something new in Australia’s water sector, e.g. alternative market based policies (MBI) in northern Victoria, the Pilot Interstate Water Trading Project, and others
- Relatively new concept in SA, but there are pilot projects on bottom-up approaches to water services regulation (“Citizens’ Voice”), and because of its success being upscaled to other regions in SA
- Multi-level approach for developing a tailor-made strategy for the Gnangara groundwater system (Gnangara Sustainability Strategy) and for the PerthPeel region (Perth-Peel regional water plan); - All seven water regions of WA have developed their own regional water plans, including a multitude of tailor-made management strategies based on a catchment management approach
- Development of (tailormade) adaptation strategies at regional level has just started, e.g. climate change strategy and action plan for the Western Cape (DEADP, 2008) - Capacity for developing tailor made adaptation strategies at the local and regional level in South Africa is relatively limited compared to the Netherlands and WA, due mainly to a lack of capacity in both the Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs) and the more user-specific Water User Associations (WUAs) Dominated by double loop learning, with elements of single loop learning (ad-hoc problem solving); - For more details see table 8.4
Dominated by double loop learning, with elements of triple loop learning; - For more details see table 8.4
- Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs) are embedded in general purpose jurisdictions at multiple levels; - Governance capacity by CMAs is relatively limited compared to Netherlands and WA due to capacity problems
169
Design principle 5 - Conflict prevention & resolution mechanisms In our case studies it was difficult to identify concrete conflict resolution mechanisms, a design principle mentioned by Ostrom (2005), especially because serious conflicts were prevented by means of effective conflict prevention mechanisms. Nevertheless, based on our observations in the case studies and by means of expert judgment and reports on process events we were able to identify a number of dominant mechanisms for conflict prevention & resolution, of which some were more explicit than others. These mechanisms were:
Timing and careful sequencing;
Transparency and trust building, and;
Sharing (or centralization) of responsibilities;
Timing and careful sequencing The timing and sequencing dilemma encompasses a range of questions, concerning whether to act early or to postpone action, the timescale over which policy should be introduced, and the dangers of becoming ‘locked in’ to inappropriate policy pathways (Pierson, 2000). All case studies in this research are confronted with the same timing and sequencing dilemma since their climate change adaptation policies (no matter in which stage of development) are characterized by long time horizons and great uncertainty over potential costs and benefits of different courses of action. The programmatic approach in the Netherlands provided an important tool for time sequencing (see also Wilson et al 2007 & Haug et al 2009) by including proxies for longer-term objectives whose achievements are contingent on more immediate objectives being met (Wilson, et al 2007). In the context of the Room for Rivers process, for example, it involved near-term objectives for adaptation alongside objectives which characterize an improved capacity or ability to address adaptation in the long-term (see also Keeney and McDaniels, 2001). This avoided biasing the selection of alternatives towards those that provide immediate gains. Indeed, an important lesson of successful and adaptive management strategies is the importance of avoiding low-probability but high-consequence outcomes in the long term, even though immediate outcomes may be suboptimal (Gunderson and Holling, 2002). Transparency and trust building Transparency and trust-building are closely related (Abrams et al., 2003) and special attention is given to the role of leaders who are able to provide key functions for adaptive governance such as “building trust, making sense, managing conflict, linking actors, initiating partnership among actor groups, compiling and generating knowledge, and mobilizing broad support for change” (Folke et al., 2005: 451). In our case studies transparency and trust-building were achieved by transferring knowledge and information at the right moment to the people who need it (see also design principle 1). During the Room for River process the so-called ‘Blokkendoos’ (a report on alternative measures, their effects and cost efficiency) was an important tool for knowledge transfer to decision makers. In a later stage of the process a dummy SPKD (spatial planning key decision) was provided to all stakeholders in order be discussed before the final decision would be made by Parliament. These kinds of transparency prevented potential conflicts in a later stage of decision-making or during implementation. It was also a way of building trust between 170
responsible politicians, and between politicians and local stakeholder groups. Besides creating transparency other measures for building trust might include taking action against wrongdoing and 56 wrongdoers, monitoring compliance, and increasing accountability (see also design principle 6). In regard to transparency it is also relevant to mention how the programmatic approach in the Netherlands was being operationalised on a local scale, for example during the development of measures 57 together with citizen and farmers of the Noordwaard. During this participatory process it was important to provide stakeholders with a clearly defined scope of what to expect during the process. In the Noordwaard it meant, for example, that citizens and farmers were expecting clarity on the settlement of damages, since it was likely that a substantial number of houses and farms would need to be removed, and the owners would need to build a life elsewhere. When process owners were promising more than they could deliver then as a direct result the support from citizens and farmers would diminish drastically. At the same time, it was crucial that inhabitants of the area still had something to choose during the process. This is the big challenge of stakeholder participation: providing enough room for ideas and wishes from the local stakeholders, while at the same time providing them with a realistic and politically defined scope. Sharing of responsibilities If government tries to impose its view on the issues at stake and limits the range of possible outcomes too much, the other stakeholders may lose interest in participation. They may opt for confrontation instead of co-operation. If government shares responsibility with stakeholders it can increase its effectiveness. For example, when the Provincial Deputy Rietkerk was informing the public about the yet to be established masterplan for IJsseldelta Zuid it caused a lot of resistance from the audience, but as soon as Rietkerk was asking the audience to help him in finding alternatives and solutions the majority decided to co-operate instead of protest. This resulted amongst other in the development of the sixth scenario (Lebel et al, 2009). On the contrary, in a certain stage (2004) of the water reform process in WA there was a need to centralize responsibilities by the Premier’s Office after policy conflicts between the Water Corporation and the State Water Department. In a later stage, these responsibilities were shared again (but without
56
For more literature on trust-building see Korsten & De Goede, 2006; OECD, 2000; Sztompka, 1999; Chadna, 1993, 1995; Lave & Wenger, 1991. 57
Noordwaard is the most central part of the Biesbosch in the Netherlands and the subject of much recent controversy in Dutch water management. The Noordwaard has only been reclaimed during the 20th century and hosts some of most fertile farmlands in the entire Netherlands. However, as a result of the high water levels in the Dutch rivers during the 1990s, the government has decided to undo the reclamation and reconnect the Noordwaard to the Merwede rivers (essentially the Rhine). This measure is part of the Room for River Program. In this way the Noordwaard can serve as a buffer and can be of much importance in the prevention of dike breaks and resulting flooding in densely populated areas in the Rhine-Meuse-Scheldt delta. The first phase of the "de-poldering" was completed by 2008 and the resulting wetlands have been added to the National Park. The second phase will be completed somewhere between 2015 en 2020.
171
overlap!), amongst others by means of the National Water Act 2007 which clarified roles in water management. In WA the 2002 water forums and Premier’s Water Symposium were important mechanisms for conflict prevention around water options for the integrated water supply scheme. The forums supported community awareness raising and knowledge transfer. As participants developed their understanding of the issues, complexity and environmental footprint, they became more supportive of Government action. These forums built considerable trust on which to first develop and then implement the State Water Strategy actions. As water levels in the Gnangara mound aquifer system, Perth’s major source of water, declined through the late 1990s, the water resource manager (now Department of Water) needed to take action in an attempt to meet the Ministerial conditions relating to protection of groundwater dependent ecosystems and other environmental assets. The water resource management agency negotiated with the Water Corporation on a frequent basis over when and where water could be drawn from the groundwater system. These frequent negotiations between the water resource manager and the water supplier resulted in decisions to meet water supply needs while simultaneously putting in place strategies to deal with fluctuations in declining groundwater levels. However, the Water Corporation argued that the water resource manager was not doing enough to control private water supply, which resulted in inequitable regulation of private (e.g. for horticulture) and public water supply. One expert in WA provided an interesting example of conflict management. The threat of climate change impact on the South West Yarragadee aquifer was a catalytic uncertainty, which triggered people to start asking questions, particularly in relation to future regional water demand and availability. The community was expecting a debate, but they felt they were being managed towards a pre-determined outcome. This resulted in increased political interest and involvement in the issue, and a wider range of opportunities for community involvement and social learning. The political process can trigger learning, but might also have negative consequences, such as communities distrusting government (e.g. “government working against us instead of with us”), or perhaps by-passing viable solutions. Based on this experience the Water Corporation is now more collaborative and it works more in partnerships. A climate-independent option to deal with droughts (i.e. desalinization) has also removed part of the conflict. In SA the Water Tribunal is in place for water conflicts at all levels that cannot otherwise be resolved. Its use in conflict resolution at this juncture is, however, relatively limited. Within a general, but especially a climate change context, we need to distinguish between international water conflicts and internal upstream-downstream water conflicts. At the international level the many water sharing agreements between SA and Lesotho, Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Mozambique, Botswana and Namibia may need to be revisited in light of projected changes in flow regimes (e.g. altered projected water supplies and demand; projected changes to frequencies and magnitudes of floods and droughts) anticipated with global warming. Out of the ‘water’-box thinking might be nessecary as regards upstream-downstream conflicts, e.g. hydropower in Lesotho might provide more water to downstream areas in return for food. At the internal level in SA strong laws are in place, for example the polluter pays principle or paying a water levy for so-called SFRAs (“Stream Flow Reduction Activities” as in the case of commercial afforestation). In SA, Catchment Management Agencies at the river basin level were designed and partly introduced as a conflict resolution mechanism at that level and the CMAs could also prove to play an important role with
172
regard to climate change adaptation. However, CMAs only have been installed in very few catchments so far, which might counteract any efforts for conflict resolution. In conclusion we can state that conflict prevention and resolution mechanisms can take many forms, often more implicitly than explicitly. In some cases a reframing of (initially conflicting) interests is often necessary to identify solutions, such as the the climate-independent option of desalinization in WA or the hypothetic example of hydropower in Lesotho providing more water to downstream areas (mainly in South Africa) in return for food or other goods. It is also interesting to note that investing in conflict prevention during policy development (e.g. by means of time-sequencing, transparany and trust-building in the Netherlands) might be more cost- and time-efficient than investing in conflict resolution mechanisms. The latter might be especially expensive when it comes to litigation or lawsuits (often resulting in costly delays) during policy implementation.
Design principle 6 - Nested enterprises When common-pool resources are larger and more dynamic, as in the case of transboundary river basins or groundwater systems, and involve multiple stakeholders, an additional design principle tends to characterize robust systems, viz. the presence of governance activities organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises (Ostrom, 2005:269). The complex governance systems related to our case studies all seem to require institutional frameworks and social networks nested across scales to be effective (see also Gunderson and Holling, 2002; Berkes et al., 2003), especially since it facilitates knowledge acquisition of complex systems by means of an ongoing, dynamic learning process (Folke, 2004). According to Ostrom (2005: 271) the central question to policy-makers is: How do we create a multiple-layer, polycentric system that can be dynamic, adaptive and effective over time? All our case studies have a complex governance system, unique in its own right, where appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises (Ostrom, 1990: 90). By doing so, these systems have tried to overcome the weakness of relying on either just large-scale or only small-scale units to govern complex resources systems (Choe, 2004; Ostrom, 2005; Swallow et al., 2005; Kerr, 2007). None of our case studies has nested enterprises specifically designed for dealing with the impacts of climate change on water resources. In general, we can state that authorities involved in water management also deal with climate change adaptation, implying that there are several governmental sectors involved, of which the most common are water management, agriculture, environment, spatial planning & infrastructure, and urban, rural or regional development departments. In the Netherlands, the Room for River policy was developed within a polycentric governance system involving higher levels of government as well as local systems. This polycentric governance system was 58 deliberately introduced by means of the National Spatial Strategy (‘Nota Ruimte’, VROM, 2004). This strategy articulated a policy shift from "imposing restrictions" to "promoting developments". With this
58
The National Spatial Strategy ‘Nota Ruimte’ (published in 2004 by the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) and accepted by Parliament in 2006) is the successor of the Vierde Nota Ruimtelijke Ordening Extra published in 1992 by VROM (Source: www.vrom.nl, 2009)
173
strategy the Cabinet-Balkenende III shifted its polity for spatial planning from a centralised towards a decentralised mode of governance. At the same time it consolidated an important transition in water management, which considers water as the leading principle in spatial planning. The ability to develop is the central consideration. It translates into less detailed regulation by central government, fewer barriers and greater latitude for other levels of government, members of the public and the private sector. This change in policy also demanded a transition in the mindset of many stakeholders during the Room for Rivers process, for example, Rijkswaterstaat (the executive agency of the Ministry of Water Management) became largely dependent on the cooperation and competencies of other parties, such as spatial planners, NGOs and inhabitants of areas along the main rivers. It therefore changed its apparent hierarchical and technocratic way of working into a more open, deliberative and decentralised way of working. For the implementation of the spatial measures the support of provinces, water boards, municipalities and societal organisations is also necessary (van den Brink & Meijerink, 2006). In Australia, responsibility for water resource management rests largely with the State Governments, although recent changes have increased the role of the Australian government in managing the Murray Darling Basin. In the WA case study, the WA Government is responsible for the management of the relevant water resources under its own WA legislation and primarily through the Department of Water, which was established in 2006. As a signatory to the NWI in 2005, WA is obliged to manage its water resources in accordance with the NWI Intergovernmental Agreement with the Australian Government. The Department of Water has a strong regional presence and focus. Water Resource Management Committees may be established under the WA Rights in Water and Irrigation Act and these Committees can have powers delegated to them to undertake water resource management functions. To date, several committees have been established but their roles remain advisory. The WA Government delivers a regional focus on social and economic development through nine Regional Development Commissions within the Department of Regional Development and Lands. Since the 2003 State Water Strategy, Local Government, the third tier of government in Australia, is playing an increasing role in water management. In WA this focused on encouraging, supporting and demonstrating water conservation and demand management, though in some Australian states Local Governments play a greater role in water supply and wastewater services. In South Africa the principle of multiple-layered polycentric “nested enterprises” is well enshrined in the National Water Act through the envisaged devolution of water resource management to Catchment Management Agencies, each with their unique needs, and within the CMAs the more user-specific Water User Associations (WUAs). However, in regard to fully comprehending the ramifications of projected climate change impacts it is doubtful that all CMAs and/or WUAs will have the necessary technical capacity to develop and implement their own catchment or problem specific adaptation plans, especially since the NWRS currently contains little/nothing by way of “best practice” rules/guidelines. Already in 2009 the originally envisaged 19 CMAs are being reduced to approximately half that number, and it is surmised that this is largely as a result of the necessary skills base not being there. Additionally, the 5 yearly update of the NWRS, which by legislation should have been completed by 2009 and should have contained far more detail on climate change than the 2004 version, has not materialized. There is a further danger that water related decision making in SA is not being truly “nested”, but rather overlapping (e.g. by District Municipality and provincial boundaries not coinciding with catchment boundaries) – a reality which already complicates water governance. The above factors are unlikely to make adaptation to climate change in the water sector easier. However, since polycentric systems have overlapping units, information about what has worked well in one setting can be transmitted to others who may try it out in 174
their settings (Ostrom (2005: 283). Examples of this intra- and interregional transfer of knowledge and experiences are provided by the policy experiments in our case-studies (see design principle 4). In South Africa, basin level organizations (CMAs) as well as indigenous knowledge at the local level play important roles in developing innovative approaches to addressing climate change. Innovative approaches have been introduced, for example, at municipal level in the eThekwini (Durban) municipality as well as at the provincial level in the Western Cape through it “Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan”. These approaches are also to some extent taken up at the national level (although at this stage in very broad, generic terms only), thus supporting a polycentric policy approach. The Netherlands and South Africa have a distinct multi-level and complex governance system when it comes down to water management, spatial planning and processes of climate change adaptation, especially since there is a so-called fourth administrative layer involved: the water boards in the Netherlands and the Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs) in South Africa. Water boards and CMAs are typical nested enterprises, and following the multi-level governance typology of Hooghe and Marks (2003) they can be described as Type II multi-level governance in water management because they are specialized (task-specific) jurisdictions. In other words, they provide a particular local service, in this case solving water quality and water quantity problems within a defined area. Additionally, the Dutch water boards have the power to tax and their governing boards are elected. The costs of water treatment are financed by a water pollution levy, which is based on the polluter pays principle. It is especially this element of financial independence and democratic accountability which distinguishes the Dutch case from the other case studies. Nevertheless, the Dutch water boards and South African CMAs are embedded in Type I multi-level governance. In contrast, In WA we have not observed Type II, but only Type I multi-level governance. This type of governance is characterized by general purpose jurisdictions at the local level (e.g. municipalities), regional level (e.g. provinces in the Netherlands or regional offices of WA state government agencies), national level (e.g. ministries in the Netherlands or State Departments in WA), and international level (e.g. EU in case of the Netherlands or the Commonwealth in Australia). The result in the Netherlands and South Africa is a baroque patchwork of Type II jurisdictions overlaying a nested pattern of Type I jurisdictions. In summary, Type II governance is generally embedded in Type I governance, but the way this works varies (Hooghe and Marks, 2003, p.238) and there is no general blueprint. One of the major advantages of multi-level governance lies in its scale flexibility, but it also implies the coordination of multiple jurisdictions, which results in major transaction costs (Hooghe and Marks, 2003: 239). One way of dealing with this problem is to limit the number of autonomous actors who have to be coordinated by limiting the number of autonomous jurisdictions, e.g. the number of water boards in the Netherlands has been reduced, for reasons of efficiency, from 1007 in 1970, to 129 by 1990, to 26 socalled ‘all-in’ (comprehensive) water boards by 2009. This signified the end of the old situation in which various water boards were responsible for different tasks within the same area. Based on our empirical analyses we can conclude that water governance in our case studies involved polycentric institutional arrangements. In the Netherlands and South Africa there are nested quasiautonomous decision-making units (water boards and CMA respectively) operating at multiple scales, while WA shows general purpose jurisdictions at multiple levels with specific departments focusing on water and climate. To what extent these polycentric institutional arrangements contribute to climate change adaptation is not clear yet, since the outcomes of its adaptation strategies are largely unknown at 175
present. Most of them have only recently been introduced and there has not been enough time to test their long-term appropriateness and effectiveness in relation to their institutional arrangements. Nevertheless, we have seen that in the process of developing adaptation strategies the responsible decision-making units in all case studies involve local, as well as higher, organizational levels and aim at finding a balance between decentralized and centralized control (Imperial, 1999; Huntjens et al. 2010). Hence, multi-level systems, cross-scale interactions and networks that connect individuals, organisations, agencies, and institutions at multiple organisational levels seem to be of paramount importance (see also Adger, 2001; Adger et al., 2005; Olsson et al., 2006; Kok & De Coninck, 2007).
Design principle 7 - Policy experimentation in a polycentric system Policy experimentation is a relatively new concept in all case studies and only in the Netherlands it has been used specifically for management experiments in climate change adaptation, whereas in South Africa so far only within the context of water services regulation and in Western Australia for sustainable urban development. Nevertheless, most policies may be considered experiments, especially in times of (rapid) change. Without evidence, policy makers must fall back on intuition, ideology or conventional wisdom—or, at best, theory alone. And many policy decisions have indeed been made in these ways. However, the resulting policies can go astray, and sometimes seriously so, given the complexities and interdependencies in our society and economy and the unpredictability of peoples’ reactions to change. When there is only a single governing authority, policymakers have to experiment simultaneously with all of the common-pool resources within their jurisdiction with each policy change (Ostrom, 2005: 284). If the systems are relatively separable, allocating responsibility for experimenting will not avoid failure, but will drastically reduce the probability of immense failures for an entire region (Ostrom, 2005: 284). Several prominent scholars have pointed to policy experimentation as an effective mechanism that may help to find out what works on the ground, induce behavioral changes, and produce institutional innovations that are conducive to entrepreneurialism, investment, and economic growth (Hayek 1978; North 1990; Roland 2000; Mukand and Rodrik 2005). Our case studies in the Netherlands, WA and, to a lesser extent, in SA provide interesting examples of how experimentation is facilitated by a polycentric system (see also design principle 6 – Nested enterprises / polycentric governance). Hence, in addition to the design principles from Ostrom (1995, 2005) we also argue the importance of policy experimentation (Sanderson, 2002; Heilmann, 2008, Roland, 2000; Mukand and Rodrik, 2005) as an institutional design principle for climate change adaptation. Based on Heilman (2008:3) we define policy experimentation as “a policy process in which experimenting units try out a variety of methods and processes to find imaginative solutions to predefined tasks or to new challenges that emerge during experimental activity”. The Room for Rivers Program in the Netherlands provides an excellent example of how experimentation is facilitated by a polycentric system. Near Avelingen a management experiment has been initiated (in 2007) to test how decision-making (on flood management) might be accelerated by means of timely involvement of stakeholders (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2008), while the Overdiepsche Polder was a policy experiment in shifting the responsibility for planning from the national to provincial government in combination with extensive stakeholder participation (Water in Beeld, 2008). Another 59 example of policy expirementation is IJsseldelta Zuid, since this ‘experimenting unit’ has tried out new
59
The IJsseldelta project was labeled as a National pilot project for spatial planning
176
methods and processes (e.g. spatial planning design sessions by stakeholders and citizens) to find imaginative solutions to predefined tasks of the Room for Rivers policy (Lebel et al., 2009). In WA three parallel planning processes are ongoing which deal with climate change (but each with different foci), viz. the Gnangara Sustainability Strategy, Water Forever, and the Perth Peel State Water plan. Each of these plans has a committee which tries to line up different planning processes. Although it has not been explicitly used in WA’s process of climate change adaptation the concept of policy experimentation is not something new in Australia’s water sector. The Western Australian Liveable Neighbourhoods Design Code (LN Code) initiative is a major experiment in the development and application of sustainable development principles at the neighbourhood level (Curtis and Punter, 2004). Other examples in Australia include the Pilot Interstate Water Trading Project set up in 1998; experimentation with three alternative market based policies (MBI) in northern Victoria (Duke, 2006); and policy experimentation with regulations and markets linking watersheds with downstream water users in the Murray Darling Basin (Nordblom et al., 2008). In South Africa the concept of policy experimentation is relatively new, although there are some examples of policy experimentation on water pricing schemes in SA (Szabo, 2009). Although not directly related to, but nevertheless relevant for, climate change adaptation, there are some promising examples in SA’s water sector of how policy experimentation can lead to new insights being upscaled or transferred to other regions with similar problems. For example, the “Raising Citizens’ Voice in the Regulation of Water 60 Services” is a public education initiative driven by the National Regulator (currently within the DWEA). It supports a bottom-up approach to water services regulation by actively involving citizens in the local monitoring of water and sanitation services. An initial pilot project in four townships of Cape Town since 2006 was so successful that the City upscaled “Citizens’ Voice” to a fully-fledged municipal programme. Furthermore, it is spreading to other municipalities, such as the eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality (Durban) in KwaZulu-Natal, which funded a similar initiative in partnership with The Mvula Trust. We can conclude that policy experimentation in our case studies played a supportive role in expanding horizons to find solutions and for adapting to new circumstances. In most cases it was a coordinated activity, involving experts, stakeholders, ordinary citizens and policy makers in a process of collective discovery (see also Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Fischer, 1995; Pielke, 2007). According to Heilman (2008), policy experimentation is not equivalent to freewheeling trial and error or spontaneous policy diffusion. It is a purposeful and coordinated activity geared to producing novel policy options that are injected into official policymaking and then replicated on a larger scale, or even formally incorporated into national law. However, policy experiments can be difficult to initiate since the results of experiments do not always lend themselves to clear-cut policy choices, and results may appear when the policy makers who initially asked for them have disappeared from the political scene (Sanderson, 2002). However they can be an effective way of loosening up policy systems, so creating space for innovations (Huitema & Meijerink, 2009). Policy experimentation is a relatively new concept in all case studies and only in the Netherlands it has been used specifically for management experiments in climate change adaptation, whereas in South Africa so far only within the context of water services regulation and in Western Australia for sustainable urban development. Nevertheless, these examples show the potential of policy experimentation is a key
60
http://www.waterintegritynetwork.net/page/2670
177
institutional practice in adaptive governance to provide the basis for reflexive social learning (Sanderson, 2002).
Design principle 8 - An integrated approach/strategy tailor-made to local circumstances An integrated strategy for climate change adaptation might be considered as an outcome of the functioning of the design principles mentioned previously, and it is at minimum considered an important milestone during a robust and adaptive process (see design principle 1). Since the projected impacts from climate change can differ significantly within small geographic areas, adaptation is challenging and requires predominantly site-specific, local efforts, related to geographic and water-related circumstances, the socio-economic circumstances, the political system and the specific institutional arrangements, which includes availability of relevant capacity and skills at local level. For the latter we have seen that often a multi-level governance approach is required, for example the IJsseldelta Masterplan (at the local scale) is developed within the context of the Room for Rivers policy for the Rhine branches (at the regional scale) in the Netherlands. Also in WA there was a multi-level approach for developing a tailor-made strategy for the Gnangara groundwater system (Gnangara Sustainability Strategy) and for the Perth-Peel region (Perth-Peel regional water plan), all within the context of the State Water Plan. As a matter of fact, all seven water regions of WA have developed their own regional water plans, including a multitude of tailormade management strategies based on a catchment management approach. In South Africa, basin level organizations (CMAs) as well as the local level stakeholders play an important role in developing innovative approaches to addressing climate change. Innovative approaches were, for example, introduced in the eThekwini municipality as well as the Western Cape Province. These approaches are also to some extent taken up at the national level, thus supporting a polycentric governance approach. It should be noted that the capacity for developing tailor made adaptation strategies at the local and regional level in South Africa is relatively limited compared to the Netherlands and WA, due mainly to a lack of capacity in both the Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs) and the more user-specific Water User Associations (WUAs). The development of tailormade adaptation strategies at the regional level has just recently started, e.g. the climate change strategy and action plan for the Western Cape (DEADP, 2008). In general, we can conclude that the adaptation strategies in our case studies are characterized by taking into account: 1) Multi-levels of governance; 2) Multi-issues, such as integration of land use and water in spatial planning, including agriculture, environmental protection, transportation, tourism, nature conservation, urban development, etc. 3) Multi-perspectives from different actors, sectors and disciplines 4) Multi-resources necessary for implementation (e.g. by public-private partnerships, cost-recovery, water pricing), institutional strengthening and capacity building.
178
Taking the above considerations into account we can conclude that an integrated strategy for climate change adaptation is characterized by being multi-level, multi-issue, multi-perspective and multiresourced. At the same time, we have seen that local adaptation programmes require tailor-made arrangements which, inter alia, take into account situational conditions regarding the content of the issues, relationships with other sectors, and commitments. Climate change adaptation requires management of water resources across different time-frames and at different spatial scales (local, regional, national, international). In contrast to traditional planning for infrastructure, governments and stakeholders at all levels need to be flexible under changing conditions when determining adaptation policies and measures, especially since climate change has an unpredictable future. Our key conclusion is that adaptation strategies need to be tailor-made to local circumstances, related to the specific geographic and water-related circumstances, the socio-economic circumstances, the political system and the specific institutional arrangements. In order to realize such tailormade strategies it often requires a multi-level, multi-sector, multi-issue and multi-resource approach.
Design principle 9 - Policy learning through exploring uncertainties, deliberating alternatives and reframing problems and solutions In addition to the working hypotheses of Ostrom we have assessed the type of learning processes taking place during climate change adaptation in the case studies. Hence, the adaptation strategies currently in place are being assessed in terms of different levels of policy learning. It is important to take into account that learning may have different levels of intensity (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007, 2008). These levels are addressed in the concept of double loop learning (Argyris, 1999) or even triple loop learning (Hargrove, 2002), an extension of the double loop concept represented below. Chapter 4 provides definitions and more details of how the triple loop concept of Hargrove’s (2002) has been operationalised into a list of indicators for assessing the type of policy learning. Figure 8.1 provides (once more) the conceptual framework for distinguishing between different levels of policy learning. Context
Frame of reference
Actions
Results (Errors)
Single loop learning
Double loop learning
Triple loop learning Regime transformation / paradigm shift (e.g. from ‘fight against water’ to ‘living with water’ and change of regulatory framework)
Changing the frame of reference and guiding assumptions (e.g. increase in the diversity of measures, such as retention areas and by-passes).
Refinement of established actions without changing guiding assumptions or without taking alternative actions into account (e.g. increase height of dikes to improve flood protection).
Figure 8.1 – Different levels of policy learning (Adjusted version from Huntjens et al. (2008), based on Hargrove (2002))
179
It should be taken into account that the management regimes may be currently in the process of developing climate change adaptation strategies to deal with floods and/or droughts. In other words, even when a new management regime has been established it may not have achieved its projected outputs (and/or outcomes) yet. Hence, the outcomes of these adaptation strategies are largely unknown at present. Most of them have only recently been introduced and there has not been enough time to test their long-term appropriateness and effectiveness. Nevertheless, in this research we have been determining, amongst others, the drivers for developing the adaptation strategies and their initiation points, in order to be able to compare the time-scales and current state of affairs in climate change adaptation in the case-studies. Table 8.4 presents an overview of key variables to determine the dominant level of policy learning during development of climate change adaptation strategies in the Netherlands, Western Australia and South Africa. Level of policy learning in the Netherlands The Room for Rivers-policy in the Netherlands is predominantly characterized by double loop learning, although elements of triple loop learning have been observed as well. The Room for Rivers-policy clearly shows some elements of triple loop learning, such as a change in the regulatory framework (PKB, 2006), strong involvement of civil society, taking into account uncertainties, and last but not least, a change in paradigm from “fighting against water” towards “living with water”. The clear influence from civil society on policy making is being reflected, amongst others, in the “Advice to the parliament as regard the PKB Room for Rivers by nine civil society organisations” (LIRR, 2003). This advice was for a large part incorporated in the final plan. Moreover, the Room for Rivers-policy involves entirely new management measures and new physical interventions (see table 8.4). Also structural constraints and uncertainties are specifically being addressed and dealt with. Although the latter leaves room for improvement, e.g. the rigidity of related policy (WFD and Natura 2000) – by focusing on objectives – may be a limiting factor to other solutions. Moreover, there are continuous tensions between safety and nature. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature, and Environment (LNV) is very ambitious as regards nature development in floodplains, while research reports (e.g. Alterra report 1624) show that floodplains and nature development are very difficult to combine in practice. Level of policy learning in Australia The policy learning in water management in south west Western Australia demonstrates an evolution from single loop learning to double loop learning, with some movement towards triple loop learning. The State Water Strategy, being drought response driven, was largely a single loop learning process. The situation called for action and actions were largely responsive and typical responses applied elsewhere in the past. However, the water forums, Premier’s Water Symposium and implementation of the State Water Strategy provided an opportunity for increased understanding and involvement of stakeholders in water issues, thereby establishing an important platform for later processes (double loop learning). Importantly, this platform supported the Security through Diversity strategy, which was a nation-leading approach to climate adaptation that since has won many awards and greatly influenced water supply strategies in other major Australian cities. The Security through Diversity strategy introduced progressive and new thinking that shifted water management in Western Australia from the previously dominant supply-side thinking and is a policy shift that demonstrates triple loop learning. However, previous
180
commitments to reinforce some of these changes through fundamental rewriting of Western Australia’s water resources legislation (which is nearly 100 years old) made during the period of greatest pressure on water resources have not yet been implemented. Hence, there is a serious risk that the high level of policy learning is not being consolidated in a later stage terms due to contextual factors (e.g. in this case political, organizational and economical). The WA case study shows that the policy learning that occurred in the pressure period 2001 to 2007 is now being lost through changes in government, changes in agency personnel and other priorities, like the global financial crisis, reducing the focus on water and climate issues. Level of policy learning in South Africa The current strategies in South Africa are partly characterized by single loop learning, which means that coping strategies are defined by enhancement of existing measures, such as optimising the current system of large storage dams and inter-basin water transfer schemes and related infrastructure. However, in the strategies you can also find some elements of double loop learning (e.g. contingency planning for extreme events such as floods and droughts, flexibility in water use allocations, water demand and conservation mechanisms, and collaboration across national boundaries in the Orange Basin). However, at this moment strategies in SA do not take into account climate change scenarios in current policymaking, although good climate change scenarios are available (IPCC downscaled). Moreover, although the National Climate Response Strategy (2004) is opting for a wide range of possible adaptation measures, the translation of this strategy into operational policy has not occurred yet. This is mainly due to current institutional arrangements, extreme lack of skills and human capacity, and the traditional notion of water management which hampers implementation. In general, current research in SA suggests that the political and planning response is lagging behind compared to the understanding of climate change (Mukheibir, 2007).
181
182
8.6
SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Based on our observations we argue that there is a need to distinguish between design principles for sustaining long-enduring, common pool resource systems on a local scale (based on Ostrom, 1990, 2005) and design principles for an adaptive governance system dealing with the uncertainties of climate change impacts in a complex, open access, cross-boundary resource system, such as river basins in the Netherlands and South Africa or groundwater systems in WA. In our case studies the jurisdictional and geographical scale but also the complexity and uncertainty related to the policy problem is larger. Hence, for processes of climate change adaptation in multi-level water governance systems we argue that more attention is needed for design principles which facilitate (systemic) learning processes, such as policy learning. Our argument is supported by our empirical analyses in the Netherlands, WA and South Africa. Important theoretical frameworks in the social sciences (i.e. regime theory in political sciences; rational choice theory; new institutional economics; etc.) fall short in their ability to analyze the complex, context dependent dynamics of governance regimes (Harrison, 2006; Ostrom, 2007). Our description of the design principles mainly relate to constructivist approaches of political science, which are more sensitive to cognition and institutional change or reform, and with a broader definition of and a different perspective on institutions. By doing so, this chapter shows the benefits of constructivist institutionalism by providing tools and theories which are able to deal with social learning, policy learning, institutional change, different realities, and able to explain how identities and interests can change. These are aspects that have been neglected in approaches fixated on interests (Nullmeyer, 2006), but even these approaches are nowadays opening up to take into account the cognitive turn and the importance of learning processes in explaining institutional change. In this paper we proposed and found some empirical support for a set of nine institutional design principles for climate change adaptation in complex governance systems (Table 8.1). These institutional design principles provide useful support for a “management as learning”-approach when dealing with complexities and uncertainties. The increased awareness for the complexity of systems and for management as learning rather than control seems to be an overall trend in different fields (Senge, 1990; Pahl-Wostl, 1995, 2004; Hartvigsen et al, 1998; Berkes et al, 2002). At the same time, it is important to acknowledge the risk of institutional monocropping by imposing blueprints based on idealized versions of institutions (Evans, 2004; Ostrom, 2005). Simply imposing a uniform set of rules or institutional design principles and ignoring local ecological and social knowledge does not produce the variety needed to learn from experience. Hence, adaptation must be finely tuned to the specific features of local geography, ecology, economy and culture (Evans, 2004: 31–32). Interdependencies between design principles As being observed by Huntjens et al. (2008, 2010) (see Chapter 6 and 7) there is a strong interdependence of different regime elements in a water governance regime. This interdependence is obviously also present between different institutional design principles being observed in this chapter, since many of them show an overlap in their institutional workings, being defined by the governance regime in place. For example, when a case study is characterized by a polycentric governance system, including horizontal and broad stakeholder participation, design principles such as a robust and flexible process, collective 184
choice arrangements and conflict resolution mechanisms will be based on a high level of stakeholder participation. However, one cannot expect that design and implementation of adaptation strategies will be based on a full understanding of the interaction between institutional design principles. Some of them are emergent and path-dependent, and will unfold during the implementation process. Hence, the whole process of adaptation has to be regarded as a systemic learning process as well. From this perspective, the design principle on policy learning is related to all design principles which facilitate learning processes, in particular design principle 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8; this is again directly related to a high level of stakeholder participation in a polycentric governance system. Trust building Trust building is clearly important to collective action and thus an important component of several design principles. More work is needed on how trust is built starting with areas that this paper suggests, such as: early communication of uncertainties, joint/participative knowledge production, open access to, and shared information sources, transparency about the decision-making process, and sharing of responsibilities. Transparency and trust-building are closely related (Abrams et al., 2003) and special attention is given to the role of leaders who are able to provide key functions for adaptive governance such as “building trust, making sense, managing conflict, linking actors, initiating partnership among actor groups, compiling and generating knowledge, and mobilizing broad support for change” (Folke et al., 2005: 451). It is obvious that building trust becomes more challenging when the number and intensity of stakeholders participating becomes higher, and when complexity and uncertainty increases. Trust building is therefore a major issue during climate change adaptation, especially since it could make the difference between 61 stakeholders opting for confrontation or cooperation . When comparing the case studies the element of trust building was found, often implicitly, in a variety of ways. For example, in the Netherlands the sharing of information at the right time during the process supported trust between stakeholders and trust regarding the process itself. Also transparency, by providing stakeholders with a clearly defined scope of what to expect during the process, was an important way of building trust about the process. In Western Australia the public water forums supported community awareness raising and knowledge transfer. As participants developed their understanding of the issues, complexity and environmental footprint, they became more supportive of Government action. These forums built considerable trust on which to first develop and then implement the State Water Strategy actions. Furthermore, monitoring and evaluation (design principle 4) are considered important for increasing accountability, and thus building the trust that those who are responsible are also held accountable.
61
For more literature on trust-building see Korsten & De Goede (2006), Abrams et al. (2003), OECD (2000), Sztompka (1999), Chadna (1993), and Lave & Wenger (1991).
185
Commitment for dealing with uncertainties Another important element of climate change adaptation in our case studies is a commitment for dealing with uncertainties, which is often related to trust as well (Isendahl, 2009, 2010). For example, transparent and early communication of uncertainties contributed to trustworthiness in the Netherlands and Western Australia specifically. Also the sharing of responsibilities in the Netherlands (see design principle 5) was an important way of dealing with uncertainties, but also for building trust. Dealing with uncertainty means that uncertainty is addressed openly in a transparent and accountable manner. For example, in our case studies in the Netherlands and Western Australia an important step was to acknowledge the major uncertainties related to climate change, and to describe the uncertainty in quantitative or qualitative terms, for example by developing climate change scenarios leading to 'possible futures', not 'probable futures' as in statistical analysis. These scenarios have to be downscaled to the level of the system that has to be adapted to climate change. Also in South Africa for example, good climate change scenarios are available (IPCC downscaled), although they haven’t been translated into operational policies for adaptation yet. The step of deciding what course of action is the most reconcilable with the available information and expectations is the most difficult step in dealing with uncertainties, and often leads to a decision not to take any action until more and better information is available. These questions concerning whether to act early or to postpone action, but also the timescale over which policy should be introduced, and the dangers of becoming ‘locked in’ to inappropriate policy pathways are all questions related to the timing and sequencing dilemma (Pierson, 2000). All case studies in this research are confronted with the same timing and sequencing dilemma since their climate change adaptation policies (no matter in which stage of development) are characterized by long time horizons and great uncertainty over potential costs and benefits of different courses of action. Any adaptation action can create unintended impacts on other natural and social systems. In practice, there may be considerable uncertainty over the impact of an adaptation action. In some cases the impact may be clear and immediate, and past experience may be a very useful guide. In other cases, for example where the action is innovative, the consequences may not be known (Adger et al., 2005). A programmatic or portfolio approach might be an important tool for time sequencing (Wilson et al 2007 & Haug et al 2009), by including proxies for longer-term objectives whose achievements are contingent on more immediate objectives being met (Wilson, et al 2007). In the context of the Room for Rivers process, for example, a programmatic approach involved near-term objectives for adaptation alongside objectives which characterize an improved capacity or ability to address adaptation in the long-term (see also Keeney and McDaniels, 2001). This avoided biasing the selection of alternatives towards those that provide immediate gains. Indeed, an important lesson of successful and adaptive management strategies is the importance of avoiding low-probability but high-consequence outcomes in the long term, even though immediate outcomes may be suboptimal (Gunderson and Holling, 2002). In the Netherlands it meant that spatial requirements for the long-term accommodation of major floods, as a result of expected climate changes, will remain available. All measures to be implemented in the short term need to be consistent with this long-term view (the so-called ‘no regret’ type of measures). The type of solutions sought are those which can work in a range of future conditions, or ones which can be successively adjusted and corrected as new knowledge is gained. Such a flexible framework is necessary since various alternatives are, or will become available at a later stage.
186
Concluding comments Successful governance of climate change adaptation depends on adaptive institutions (Pahl-Wostl, 2002) that are able to cope with complexity and uncertainty in the face of new challenges and possible surprises. In order to adapt to new situations we have seen that the governance systems seem to require flexible institutional arrangements that encourage reflection, learning and innovative responses and a certain degree of redundancy. Based on our observations we argue these flexible institutional arrangements are defined by robust and flexible processes based on social learning, policy learning, and trust building, and characterized by exploring uncertainties, deliberating alternatives and reframing problems and solutions. If one was to identify an overarching frame for institutional design principles for climate change adaptation it might be called ‘mechanisms for facilitating social learning and policy learning’ (Huntjens et al., 2008). These mechanisms include collective choice arrangements, policy experimentation, conflict resolution mechanisms, monitoring and evaluation of the process, and nested enterprises. All of them are important institutional arrangements for facilitating multi-level learning processes (Huntjens et al., 2008; Pahl-Wostl, 2009). Huntjens et al. (2008) has labeled such learning environments as the socio-cognitive dimension of a governance system, which is inherent to the adaptive capacity of governance systems (Folke et al., 2005; Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007). The socio-cognitive dimension is an essential emerging property depending on a specific set of structural conditions. In particular, better integrated cooperation structures and advanced information management are structural conditions leading towards higher levels of policy learning (Huntjens et al., 2008). The importance of the socio-cognitive dimension is directly related to the fact that climate change adaptation is a so-called ‘wicked’ problem (Conklin, 2005), characterized by complexity, conflicting interests and an unpredictable future. Hence, in order to achieve institutional adaptation, certain elements need to be focused on, including adequate access and distribution of information, collaboration in terms of public participation and sectoral integration, flexibility and openness for experimentation (Huitema et al., 2009). Our research has shown that one important element of climate change adaptation is the governance structure, and specifically the manner in which institutional design principles support adaptation processes at different levels. However, further research is needed to assess the capacity of institutions to adapt to climate change and the way in which institutional arrangements can enhance that capacity. Furthermore, it is important to identify and asses the capacities of these institutional arrangement in diverse settings, since adaptation must be finely tuned not only to the specific features of local geography and ecology, but to local economies and cultures. Our comparative study had several important limitations. Only three cases were examined. The cases were compiled post-hoc and although in each case the authors were somehow either involved in the process and/or were able to carry out interviews with those who had been, the collection of data for different projects limited the depth of analysis possible. For simplicity we selected as units of analysis one or a tight cluster of closely related events as a focus of our analysis of the processes. In practice all of these ‘cases’ were part of a much larger and less coherent collection of activities, meetings and networking that might constitute a process for strategy development. A more historical, long-term, analysis of individual cases was beyond the scope of this analysis but undoubtedly would reveal further insights about the building of trust and dynamics of relations, and changing understanding of actors involved. Another important limitation was that effectiveness was not systematically assessed. Together
187
with limited set of cases this implies we cannot draw strong conclusions about the institutional design of adaptation processes without more work. The influence of context and/or path dependencies is important to be taken into account by studies on institutional change in water governance. This paper is limited in covering the full range of complexities and path dependencies related to water management and water governance, its embeddedness in a wider cultural and social context, and the role of power. An interesting concept to be explored in future research is the concept of 'institutional bricolage' (Levi‐Strauss, 1968; Franks and Cleaver, 2007; Sehring, 2009), which explains how local actors recombine elements of different institutional logics and thereby change their meaning.
188
PART IV - FUNCTIONING AND EFFECTIVENESS OF PARTICIPATION AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER DIALOGUES ON WATER AND CLIMATE – ZOOMING IN ON GENERAL PATTERNS
189
190
CHAPTER 9 ENHANCING STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT USING GROUP MODEL BUILDING IN THE TISZA, ORANGE AND AMUDARYA BASINS 62
Public document
By Dagmar Haase¹, Patrick Huntjens, Maja Schlueter³, Nicole Kranz⁴
¹ ³ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Germany
² University of Osnabrueck, Germany ⁴ Ecologic, Institute for International and European Environmental Policy, Germany
Abstract Participation processes play a crucial role in implementing adaptive management in river basins. A range of different participative methods is being applied, however, little is known on their effectiveness in addressing the specific question or policy process at stake and their performance in different socioeconomic and cultural settings. To shed light on the role of cultural settings on the outcomes of a participative process we carried out a qualitative comparative study of participation processes using group model building (GMB) in a European, a Central Asian, and an African river basin which were part of the EU-project NeWater. We use an analytical framework which covers the goals, the role analysis both of scientists and stakeholders, the process initiation and methods framed by very different cultural, socioeconomic and biophysical conditions. Across all three basins, the GMB processes produced a shared understanding among all participants of the major water management issues in the respective river basin and common approaches to address them. The “ownership of the ideas” by the stakeholders, i.e. the topic to be addressed in a GMB process, is important for their willingness to contribute to such a participatory process. Differences, however, exist in so far that cultural and contextual constraints of the basin drive the way the GMB processes have been designed and how their results contribute to policy development.
Keywords Participation, Group Model-Building, Tisza, Amudarya, Orange, Adaptive Management
62
An adjusted and shorter version of this chapter is currently in press with Ecology and Society: Haase, D., Huntjens, P. Schlueter, M., Hirsch, D., Kranz, N. (forthcoming, 2010) Enhancing participation using mental mapping and causality models in the Tisza, Orange and AmuDarya river basin. Ecology and Society, in press.
191
9.1
INTRODUCTION
While research in the previous chapters (6-8) was targeted at finding general patterns in the functioning and performance of complex governance systems, the following two chapters (9 and 10) will build on the main conclusions, in particular, our finding that stakeholder participation and learning processes play a crucial role in the capacity of these governance systems to adapt to climate change. Participation processes and local knowledge play a crucial role for implementing adaptive management (AM) in river basins (Alkan Olsson and Andersson 2006; Reed, 2008). According to Reed (2008), participation should be underpinned by equity, trust and learning to be effective and impacting. Thus also frames stakeholder processes in water management, which in general aim at creating ownership and awareness of the different views and perceptions that exist on a problem in a basin (Pahl-Wostl 2007). Accordingly, they also aim at initiating social learning while engaging local and regional stakeholders to bridge the science-policy gap and to improve the practical relevance of research (cf. experiences by Alkan Olsson and Andersson 2006; learning alliances as reported in Vries, 2006; van Buuren and Edelenbos 2004; review by Reed, 2008). Via beneficial collaboration, both scientists – in our case ecologists, hydrologists, anthropologists, sociologists and planners from the 6th EU Framework Programme project NeWater (www.newater.info) – and relevant stakeholders – in our case farmers, professionals in water management, representatives of the administration, academics and NGO representatives – come closer to ‘the nature of the problems’ in a basin (Hart 1986, Hodgson 1992, von Korff 2005, Pahl-Wostl 2007). We see an early and broad stakeholder participation as a prerequisite for setting AM into operation.
Figure 9.1a – Group Model-Building with stakeholders in Tisza Basin basin (Uzhorrod, Ukraine, April 2007)
Figure 9.1b – Group Model-Building with stakeholders in Amudarya Basin (Tashkent, Uzbekistan, April 2008)
192
There exists a wide range of very different methodologies for initiating, enhancing, facilitating and supporting participation and stakeholder processes. In this paper, we focus on Group Model-Building (GMB), since it is increasingly gaining attention in the field of complex decision-making, public policy making and implementation (Vennix 1999, Rouwette et al. 2000, Zagonel and Rohrbaugh 2007; Cockerill et al. 2006 and 2007), and in particular as a useful method for stakeholder participation in water management for developing and improving decision support models as well as integrating existing information with local / stakeholder knowledge (Wolfenden 1999, Van den Belt 2004, Stave 2002 and 2003, Exter 2004, Hare et al. 2006). GMB (also called cooperative modeling, collaborative modeling, participatory modeling, mediated modeling) is defined as … [a collection]… of pieces of a facilitated group exercise and of techniques used to construct joint kind-of-model representations of the system that move a group forward in a systems thinking intervention (according to Andersen and Richardson, 1997). During GMB the initiator (or facilitator) of the participative process works directly with stakeholder groups on key problems / (shared) visions (Palmer et al., 1999) or decisions. The method assumes that the knowledge available among the participants can help jointly working out key elements and relationships of the problem at stake more effectively. GMB exercises make the different mental models of the participants explicit and may confront all participants with them. Although being the “ideal” result of a GMB process bringing these different mental models up to a synthesis this only rarely happens. Many authors (e.g. Stave 2002 and 2003, Exter 2004 and Hare et al. 2006) show that system dynamics GMB, in particular, has the potential to facilitate stakeholder learning and assist stakeholders to think holistically about the complex systems they are trying to manage. Creating causal loops diagrams is typically part of a system dynamics based modeling effort but according to Costanza and Ruth (1998) serves ideally for approaching complex humanenvironmental systems which we face in water management. It is important to consider the purpose of involving participants from science and practice (as explained above) in the GMB process. The variety of techniques used for GMB relate to its many purposes and levels of participation (Exter 2004). Goals may include encouraging team (social) learning and communication, and improving the chances of the goals of a specific (policy or management) process being achieved by (1) improving inputs from expert knowledge, (2) improving the uptake and commitment of the participants to the results of the process, and (3) improving the democratic accountability of the management process. From a scientific point of view, GMB has been used to involve multiple experts to increase the validity and robustness of an existing either conceptual or already coded computational model on ecosystem or water management functioning (such as presented by Costanza et al. 1990 and Costanza and Ruth, 1998). Stakeholders may participate in GMB at different stages. Stave (2003) identifies a spectrum of participation when involving stakeholders in model-building. At the least participatory level, water managers can use a completed model to demonstrate the effects of alternative policies to other stakeholders. Depending on the way the discussion is facilitated, this approach can greatly enhance participant understanding of the resource system and effects of alternative management decisions. A more participatory scenario would allow stakeholders from different fields to suggest their own strategies to be tested (by a model; cf. Costanza and Ruth 1998). At the most participatory level stakeholders develop their own, at best shared, conceptual model that represents their view of the system structure as reported by Cockerill et al. (2006). The latter level was used in the GMB processes analysed in this paper.
193
Figure 9.2 - Group models developed for the Tisza basin: Causal-Loop-Diagram (1) of a concept of flood preparedness that links coping ability (short-term measure in case of a hazard event) and adaptive capacity (long-term preparedness). Diagram 2 provides a more detailed picture on the „soft path“ of long-term flood preparedness and adaptation. The pluses (+) and minuses (-) indicate the polarity the relationship is assumed to have (Thanks to Piotr Magnszweski for contributing to the model structuring).
194
training technical natural variability infrastructure
research
incentives
human capacity water pricing
availability of alternative crops
rational and integrated water use
technical skills
environmental factors raising groundwater levels
water allocation & use on farm water management
cooperation between actors
empowerment of administration
timely water deliveries
technical measures
overuse in agriculture condition of infrastructure
water and soil quality (salinization)
observation and
institutional and enforcement of legal framework regulations
drainage
agricultural intensification overuse of fertilizers and pesticides
cooperation protocol water quality agreement on river basin level
standardized methods
monitoring transboundary cooperation
integrated biochemical monitoring
economic pressures
lack of financing data collection clear responsibilities
goal oriented monitoring
multi level drainage management
credit, project grants
availability of indicators & methods information
information
comprehensive database
information exchange
Figure 9.3 - Group model of factors influencing the improvement of water and soil quality compiled from two models generated in workshops in Tashkent (capital of Uzbekistan) and in Urgench (provincial capital in a region of intense irrigated agricultural activities). Each grey circle respresents a group identified by the participants. The factors pointing directly to the question of improving water and soil quality in the center of the diagram are first level factors as identified by stakeholders in the two exercises. The bold factors at the outer parts of the circles pointing to each group’s names are second level factors and/or proposed measures.
195
Figure 9.4 - Causal-Loop-Diagram (developed by P. Huntjens) resulting from the GMB showing drivers and barriers for the implementation of IWRM plans in the Upper Vaal catchment, South Africa. In the inner (blue) circle first order factors can be found. These are the main factors influencing the implementation of IWRM plans. In the intermediate (green) circle second order factors can be found, which either belong to first order factors, or influence the implemention of IWRM plans via first order factors. Finally, the outer (pink) circle comprises a range of contextual factors, which are (directly or indirectly) influencing first or second order factors. Some of the relationships in this figure are undefined relationships, meaning that it is not clear whether there is a positive or negative correlation between the factors under consideration.
196
In this paper, we present a qualitative comparative study of participation processes which all applied the method of GMB. So doing, we aim to investigate; firstly, what factors are most relevant in determining the differences and similarities of GMB processes in different river basins in Europe, Central Asia and Africa. Therefore, we focus on the socio-political and economic context and the problems which formed the individual scope of the GMB. Secondly, we analyse the GMB processes reflecting the different process designs used and the degree of participation. Thirdly, we evaluate the outcomes of the GMB processes and the satisfaction of both scientists and stakeholders with these results. To our knowledge there exist only very few studies where the method of GMB has been comparatively applied to address issues of integrated water resource management in large river basin in multiple basins. To add empirical experience and evidence for pros and cons of the GMB method, our comparison sheds light on potentials and limitations of GMB itself as well as on regional specifics that enhance and complicate GMB processes. It further gives some ideas on different ways to conduct GMB and of pathways from method uptake to evaluation of the results. In addition, we give arguments why we think that GMB supports participation in river basin management which addresses the genuine topic of this Special Feature.
9.2
METHODS
As stated in the introduction, the empirical evidence for this study stems from GMB processes in three river basins worldwide, the Tisza (Western Ukraine), the Amudarya (Uzbekistan) and the Orange (South Africa), the two former with post-socialist background. The case studies were all part of the NeWater project (www.uos. newater.de) where they were selected based on their characteristics as large transboundary river basins representing different greographical areas and problems related to the implementation of IWRM. The project provided a common base for the research design and analysis of its seven case studies, however, the implementation of the research in the cases varied widely because of the particular focus and specifics of each case. The comparative framework broadly consists of three different categories of factors we consider relevant in determining the outcome of a GMB processes: a.
the socio-political and economic context of the countries the case study is situated in;
b.
the goals of the GMB exercise and the form of involvement of stakeholders (level of participation as mentioned above) and;
c.
the design of the process itself and the methods used there.
The outcomes of each GMB process were subject of the comparison, too. We do the comparison in an explorative way similar as described by e.g. Cundill et al. (2005), Krysanova et al. (2008) or Kuper et al. (2009) in this Special Feature. The following set of criteria base on the framework of transition to adaptive management developed by Pahl-Wostl (2007) and is in agreement with findings on cooperative modeling by Akkermans and Vennix (1997) and Cockerill et al. (2007): a.
As criteria to compare the socio-political and economic context of the case studies serve the status of the civil society, the political system and respective hierarchies in water management, 197
sectoral integration, allocation of financial resources, water supply, information access of local stakeholders, etc. (Table 9.1). b.
The general setting, the framing and design of the GMB process includes factors like framing and initiation of the process, the representativeness of stakeholders involved, the methods of cognitive mapping, interviewing, mental modelling etc. making up a GMB exercise together and, finally, links to ongoing policies in the basins. This is summarized for the three basins in Table 9.2.
c.
Further, we discuss the methods used for facilitating including bi-lateral conversations, round table discussions, white board usage, notes, film, disk) (Table 9.3).
The outcomes of the different participative processes we compare by looking at a) their resulting models, b) acceptance and c) the added value for both stakeholders and scientists (Table 9.4) making use of observations during the model building process (snap shots of the workshops are given in Figure 9.1), the feedback from stakeholders either in oral or in written form, the acceptance of the GMB method in the case study basins (Table 9.5), and an interpretation of the resulting group models by the NeWater scientists involved (as given in Table 9.2). How did we develop the above described analysis framework for three different case studies? This development is threefold: (1) Prior to the field work the selection of stakeholders was carried out according to a qualitative stakeholder scoping which was framed by the NeWater overarching methodology (www.newater.info). This was done individually in each case study. (2) After fieldwork, an exchange of the documentary outcomes of the individual GMB processes in form of written complex impressions was indispensable to inform about the different cases and to start a first reflection phase about commons and differences. In a second step, a joint discussion established a common language as well as a frame for interpretations across the cases. (3) Based on the information from the three cases the development of the tables 9.1-5 and their respective analysis categories was possible. Since the documentary material from three case studies was available the categories of the tables 9.1-5 are rather complex and comprehensive. The joint discussion under (2) also facilitated a validation and consistence check of the results and experiences of the single cases since we challenged each other’s summaries to make sure they are a good reflection of what really happened.
198
Table 9.1 - Socio-political and economic context Tisza
Amudarya
Orange
Political system
Democracy since 1991 in the Ukraine after socialist regimes
Presidential republic (autocracy) since 1991, after breakup of the Soviet Union
Democracy since 1994, apartheid legacy looming large
Poverty rate
Very high (>50%, with large regional disparities)
High (>26%, with large regional disparities)
Very high (~57 %, with regional disparities)
Area (km )
157,218
309,000
896,368
Water supply
Normally sufficient water supply in the basin but increase of droughts after 1990; more droughts projected in REMO scenarios (Krysanova et al. 2008)
Main water use for irrigation in semi-arid lowlands; current mismanagement leads to overuse and water scarcity in low water years; increase in drought events expected
Extremely water-scarce region, diminishing supply projected under current IPCC scenarios
Gender issues
Water management is not primarily an issue of gender – there is female and male capacity and knowledge involved
Water management mainly in the hands of males. Involvement of women in administration and management at national levels decreasing since indpendence; at local levels existing. In some regions the role of women is becoming more traditional after the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Water management mainly in the hands of white males, females only slowly entering the field, capacity and knowledge are limiting factors
Hierarchy in water management
Administration works hierarchically and information flows are often not well-defined and person-depending: the ministries set up the framework for the water boards’ work in the regions without adequate knowledge of the local specifics
Sectoral integration
Limited due to strict separation of “spheres of power” in environmental and spatial management; Very low level of information exchange due to technical and legislative limits
Water and agricultural management are strongly linked, other sectors not, however water management is subordinate to agricultural management
Limited due to overlapping responsibilities of government portfolios, National Environmental Management Act provides for theoretical integration
Allocation of financial resources
Limited financial budgets of the public sector, missing of modern bank system and regulations, donors are oftentimes transferred to individuals than to topics
Limited development of non-banking financial institutions, including leasing, mortgage, insurance, pension funds and securities investment funds and securities traders. Financial resources transferred by donors are allocated to individual partners, neither to themes nor projects.
Public sector financially constrained, however, some investment, e.g. by private bulk water providers. Donor funding available for the development of larger river basin management issues
2
Centralized, strongly hierarchical, narrow stakeholder participation; non-transparent information flows
Responsibility delegated to some degree to provincial level, further devolvement planned through introduction of catchment management agencies
Civil society
Small number of NGOs working in the basin
Poorly developed; strongly government controlled; most NGOs recently closed
NGO only in emergent stage, but very active in some areas
Information access of local stakeholders
Limited due to lack of volition to share “technical” information and equipment at the local scale (municipalities)
Very limited due to dominant hierarchical administration, lack of transparency; often costly or only accessible through personal networks
Limited, happening in but few occasions where we encounter strong citizens’ lobbies
199
Table 9.2 - Overview of design of GMB in each basin
Aspect
Tisza
Amudarya
Orange
Prior involvement of participants in project
To a larger extent. Some of them are strongly involved in another Newater activity (scenario games using knowledge elicitation tools named KnETs)
Yes to a large extent
No prior involvement of participants
Initiation of process (by whom)
NeWater European scientists and Hungarian expert and scientific partners
NeWater European and local scientific partners
NeWater European scientist with support of local partners
Representativeness of stakeholders (all participants except the NeWater scientists and local scientists)
Moderate – Strong (Local level not)
Moderate
Moderate
Stakeholders from the local water management board participated. They all represent different roles in water management such as water quality, monitoring, flood prediction and public relations work.
Stakeholders from transboundary, national, regional and local levels representing different roles, such as decision maker, implementing agency, monitoring agency, researcher, affected, influencing and interested
Stakeholders from national and regional water management authorities representing different roles; including representative of national biodiversity agency, representative of bulk water provider
National level with member from the Hydromet service was present.
Policy level (decision makers) only weakly represented, NGO only weakly represented
almost exclusively participants from the decision-making/planning level
Two breakout groups on different topic at each location
Individual sessions with stakeholders, where CM were constructed, facilitated by NeWater scientists
(low, moderate, high)
Policy level with department head from the Ministry of Environment. NGO involvement (representing independent agents) Design of process Cognitive Mapping (CG) Group Model Building (GM)
Introduction by Newater scientists 2-3 breakout groups on definition of topics CM: individual cognitive mapping by each participant within the breakout group GMB: joint construction of GM by all participants of all groups; each participant contributed major factors from her/his CM Summary / Iteration: Emergence of mental models, Loops, Concept Models, Stock-Flow approach
Duration of process
At each location cognitive mapping and GMB took place in separate sessions during a two days workshop
CM: individual cognitive mapping by each participant GMB: joint construction of GM by all participants in group; each participant on after the other contributed major factors from his CM Summary / Iteration: Emergence of mental models, Loops, Concept Models At each location cognitive mapping and GMB took place in two separate sessions during a one day workshop
GMB was constructed ex-post by scientist and sent to participants for feedback
Summary / Iteration: Emergence of mental models, Loops, Concept Models Duration of session one to two hours
200
Table 9.3 - Data and methods used for analysis and evaluation of the GMB process and stakeholder involvement in each case
Tisza Debriefing of the moderation team
Amudarya
Orange
Debriefing of the moderation team
Face-to-face interviews Observation during CM Observations during Conceptual Modelling (CM) and GMB process by scientists Recording of the GMB sessions partly (disk, film)
Observations during CM and GMB process Recording of the GMB sessions partly (photos, films)
Written feedback from stakeholders/participants in GM-exercise after GM was compiled by scientists Oral feedback from participants at the end of workshop Oral feedback from local experts and scientists involved in the GMB after each session using smiles
Analysis of the group models after each session by scientists Posterior reflections by the scientist team on the cards and drawing materials used
Oral feedback from participants at the end of workshop Oral feedback from local scientists involved in the process
Analysis of the CM by scientist, composition of group model
Analysis of the group models by scientists
201
Finally, the information collected in the tables 9.1-5 was the base of the cross-comparison with respect to common elements and differences between the three GMB processes and, simultaneously, mirrored with other studies cited in the international literature.
9.3
RESULTS
In this section we present the outcomes of the GMB processes in the three basins. First, we provide details concerning the boundary conditions of the basins to illuminate the local context within which the GMB processes were embedded. Next, we describe the design of the GMB processes themselves. Finally, we report on our analysis of these processes as they were implemented, and their outcomes. It is important to state that the conceptual framework used to compare the GMB in the three cases was developed after the finalization of the GMB processes in each case and thus did not influence the processes.
BOUNDARY CONDITIONS The boundary conditions of the three GMB processes show a range of similarities (Table 9.1). All basins are located in countries with by societal systems in transition or shortly after a transition. However, while in the Tisza and the Orange basins the transition brings about a process of democratization this cannot be said of Uzbekistan, which is characterized by an authoritarian political regime. They all have very high (>50%) to high (>25%) poverty rates. The civil society is relatively weak, meaning that, for example, donor management is realized by individuals, rather than by organizations or as a response to pressing environmental problems and that there is little public activities addressing issues of concern to a community. The information access of local stakeholders in water management is limited due to strong hierarchies or lobbyism. Moreover, we found hydrological extremes – water scarcity in combination with floods – as the crucial problems within all three basins. The basins differ with respect to the organization and participation of stakeholders particularly as it relates to the existence of strong hierarchies and the distribution of power and knowledge. Of course, we were confronted with very different cultural settings in Europe, Central Asia and Africa. Also gender issues are handled differently: whereas in the Ukraine women are equally treated in water management and policy making, the two other basins show a strong male-dominated bias in gender issues. These socio-economic and political issues are crucial relevant to GMB since the frame and determine the entire GMB process and its effectiveness as already argued by Akkermans and Vennix (1997). We will show in the next sections that political sensitivity and communication strongly impact the results of the three GMB processes.
DESIGN OF THE GMB PROCESS Comparing the design of the GMB process in the three basins, we found a range of similarities (Table 9.2). In each of the cases NeWater scientists initiated and conducted the process as a form of action research. The participating stakeholders were chosen according a stakeholder analysis process which was carried out in each case study at an earlier stage within the NeWater project. Major determinants of the stakeholder choice were (1) having a stake and interest in water management, (2) being involved in local/regional administration or informal governance structures and (3) being a local/national scientist with specialization in the field of water management or water policy. The latter were assumed to be 202
important to support the NeWater scientists in disseminating the methodology to the two first stakeholder groups. Representativeness of stakeholders in the GMB process was moderate. While stakeholders representing governmental and non-governmental actors from nearly all hierarchical levels (transboundary to local) were present, policy and decision makers were often only weakly represented. The latter reduces the impact the group model building exercises can have on policy processes and limits them to an analytical exercise trying to explore the underlying drivers, processes and actors determining the current water management regime. The global goals of the GMB processes were all centered on the identification of factors, processes and relationships in the river basin management. Looking in more detail, however, they differ in focus: specific water management issues such as improvement of water and soil quality or coping with extreme events, the implementation of IWRM in the river basin, and flood risk management in a specific subbasin. The method of GMB was found to be applicable in all three basins, regardless of the very different sociocultural backgrounds, as it produced results and new insights. The common work brought up new ideas and produced “joint” pictures of “their” basins. We also found considerable differences (Table 9.2). In the Tisza and Amudarya basins, additional stakeholder involvement in other, rather different, participative methods (mental modelling; focus group discussions, knowledge elicitation by gaming …) clearly supported the success of GMB. It is difficult to assess what effects GMB would have had without the experiences gained from applying these other participatory methods. The design of the process also differed with respect to who was involved in the group model building itself: in the Tisza and Amudarya basins groups of stakeholders jointly built the group model in facilitated sessions in break-out groups while in the Orange basin NeWater scientists built the group models based on the coginitive maps gathered in individual interviews. These different approaches impacted the duration of the cognitive mapping and GMB itself (day to hour scale; cf. Table 9.2). Only in one case – the Tisza – the GMB was loosly linked to a current policy process in the basin, the development of a new flood risk and flood mitigation plan. In the Amudarya one of the topics addressed (“Improving the provision of wetland ecosystem services”) was linked to the implementation of measures by the government for restoring wetland lakes in the delta region. Thus, this paper cannot contribute to the question to what extent GMB is a good method for analyzing a direct implementation problem. However, we found the method to be very appropriate for analysing a complex situation including the implementation phase – one that all stakeholders face – to create a shared system understanding. All GMB processes led to the identification of key variables of the system of interest – identified using break-out groups (Tisza and Amudarya) and interviews (Orange), a structuring and clustering of these variables (according to causalities), as well as a joint discussion, revision and development of a quantitative model. Preliminary conclusions about key processes and actors determining the functioning or lack of the water management system were drawn by the scientists in all three basins based on the final “products” of the process: a stock-and-flow-model in the Tisza basin, an influence-model representing different factors influencing the focal question and measures that might address the factors identified in case of the Amudarya and the Orange.
203
ANALYSIS OF THE GMB PROCESS The GMB exercise, particularly the individual cognitive mapping, was initially met with skepticism in all of the cases, being a novel method to the stakeholders who in the former communist countries of Ukraine and Uzbekistan are used to more formal ways of interaction (Table 9.4). However, in most cases it could be overcome when participants saw their peers engage in the exercise (Tisza and Amudarya), or by more detailed explanation of the purpose of the exercise (Orange). In the Amudarya and Orange basins, participants welcomed the structured approach to the problem facilitated by the method, although the reasons were different. In the Amudarya case the procedure of developing an individual cognitive map first and then a group model together later on gave everybody an opportunity to introduce his/her understanding and views to the joint model despite the individual’s social standing. In the Orange case the CM exercise encouraged participants to integrate their particular knowledge into a larger context. In general, feedback from the participants in all three cases indicated that they appreciated the integrative perspective that was achieved through the process. The scope of each GMB process was naturally defined by its focus, i.e. the topics addressed. The topics in Tisza and Amudarya were more focused on a specific issue with the aim to identify potential measures, whereas in the Orange exercise the topic was broader addressing implementation of IWRM in general to identify its drivers and barriers, rather than concrete measures to overcome them. However, in all cases the resulting models went beyond the issues and factors immediately related to the goal of the exercise. In the Orange basin, for example, participants related the issue of drivers and barriers for the implementation of IWRM plans to the overall context of water and natural resources management and socio-economic developments, while in the Amudarya basin participants pointed to broader economic issues related to state agricultural policies. In the Tisza case, the focus on soft measures may have facilitated the generation of novel ideas among participants that came mainly from technical backgrounds, and thus helped to broaden the perspective on potential flood management measures. On the other hand this focus on non-technical measures might have introduced a bias, leading to a less comprehensive model. In the other two cases, the novelty was in the sharing of different perspectives from stakeholders at different levels (Amudarya) and the creation of linkages to the larger context (Orange). The added value for the scientist in all cases was closely related to the objective of the exercise. Where the main objective was on building system understanding using the knowledge of several actors as in the Orange, the involved scientists achieved an improved and more holistic system understanding. Where the focus was more on eliciting the views and roles of stakeholders as in the Tisza and Amudarya basins, as well as their understanding of relevant factors and measures for the issues addressed, the added value laid in validating and grounding scientific findings and generating realistic and trusted methods for more adaptive water management by involving the stakeholders in their development. The focus of the exercise also affected the completeness of the resulting models. In the Orange basin, the goal was to achieve a comprehensive model by having scientists compile the views of different stakeholders. In the Tisza and Amudarya basins, the focus was more on eliciting stakeholder views and priorities, and model completeness was less relevant; this is also reflected by the different ways in which stakeholder ideas and mental models are represented (Figures 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4).
204
The level of integration is higher in those cases where scientists developed the group model based on the cognitive maps collected in individual interviews (Orange) or when the results of the GMB processes were subsequently used to develop a conceptual causal loop model as presented for the Tisza. In both cases scientists included their own reflections or additional information derived from literature into the model. In the Amudarya case, the integration was mainly carried out by the stakeholders themselves during the group model building process, e.g. by asking participants to group the factors depicted in the group model. Some additional integration was achieved later on by combining the two group models that were developed from stakeholders at different levels for each topic. Given time constraints there was little opportunity to jointly focus on linkages between different factors introduced by participants.
205
Table 9.4 Analysis of the GMB process Aspect
Tisza
Amudarya
Orange
1) Improving flood risk management including
Topics addressed
Spatial scale
Acceptance and uptake of method
Coping with extreme flood events
1)
Improving water and soil quality
Identifying adaptive capacities of local municipalities
2)
Coping with extreme events (drought)
3)
Introduction of soft flood mitigation and adaptation measures
Improving the provision of wetland ecosystem services
Upstream Ukrainian part of the Tisza river basin (Zacarpathian part) characterized by high water flow travel times and frequent flooding
From river basin to subbasins; however always taking transboundary issues into account; both agricultural dominated areas as well as deltaic floodplains
Upper Vaal catchment, one of the main tributaries to the Orange River and home to a wide variety of economic activities
Low to medium at beginning, then high
Medium at beginning, then high
Medium, depending on openness of participants, some participants approached did not agree to the method of CM
Little novel ideas; novelty rather in the combination of different views and concerns of stakeholders at various levels
To some degree, linking water management issues to wider societal issues
(low, medium, high)
Generation of novel ideas
Implementation of IWRM plans, identifying drivers and barriers for implementation
List of soft flood mitigation and adaptation measures Identification of new actors in flood management and flood preparedness (e.g. church)
Participants valued the exercise as an opportunity to
Added value in view of stakeholders
Very useful joint brainstorming and identification of different “ways of thinking” of people that know each other for a long time, more integrated perspective on deficits and potentials of flood risk management, Development of measures to address adaptive capacities
Participants appreciated the opportunity to contribute their own views and ideas in a structured procedure; exercise was conceived as useful joint brainstorming, that created a more integrated perspective of the problems; Development of measures to address the need to include ecosystem water demands into procedure of water allocation planning (in the Tashkent exercise)
Formalize an intuitive thinking process Think about a familiar landscape in ways they had not before, by forcing one to identify core driving forces, pressures and relationships. Reveal dependencies between variables, and for promoting understanding and consensusbuilding in the determination of cause-effect relationships Support problem analysis.
206
Added value for scientists
Focus of the resulting models
Comprehensiveness/complet eness of the models
New insights about the system and flood risk management and actual management processes Creation of mutual understanding and trust in scientific models from the stakeholders’ side
flood risk management (from the beginning) but than biased in (short-term) mitigation and (longterm) adaptation
Comprehensive model but not complete
Clarification of views and concerns of various stakeholders at different levels and factors they see as most susceptible to change and improvement; information on power relationships and interactions within the group of stakeholders
Testing of method, CM provided by stakeholders, GMB done on that basis by scientist, clarification of linkage of water management issues to other societal problems
focus on economic factors and measures, both as important causes of water management problems and as solutions to address selected factors (e.g. improvement of investment climate, water pricing, reorientation of national economic policies)
focus on complex legislative setting currently in place in South Africa as important driver, but also barrier for implementation
Positively framed factors, necessary for implementation included the quality of information management and communication, capacity building at different levels as well as an integrated institutional setting.
Other soft factors mentioned were participatory processes in decision-making and awarenessraising.
Soft factors such as institutional measures related to the planning, management and control of water allocation, cooperation between riparian states, capacity building, were dominant over technical measures
Wide range of factors covered in all models, however, models focus on certain level or perspective, e.g. participants from downstream were most concerned about equity and control of water distribution
Participants identified several elements of the IWRM plans, that are lacking behind such as the definition of environmental objectives (especially lacking on a catchment scale), the establishment of Catchment Management Authorities (CMAs), the application of the polluter-pays principle, licensing system and the subsidiary principle. Socio-economic developments in the country, such as the high occurrence of HIV and AIDS, the trend towards more urbanization, complex economic linkages were taken into account
Degree of integration
Integrative in terms of geo-components, disciplines and hierarchies (of management)
Degree of integration in CM low, during group model building some integration was achieved
Rather high; the implementation of IWRM plans was embedded in the overall context of water resources and natural resources management in the South African context;
Implementation / realization of the models
Realization as CM (visualisation of variables – stocks and flows – relationships and polarity) and quantitative model using empirical evidence / initial values from the Tisza valley
Visualized as factors and causal relationships on large sheets of paper
Individual cognitive maps, group model compiled by scientists
207
Naturally the focus of the resulting models as it emerged during the process also differs between cases. While in the Tisza the focus was on mitigation and adaptation to flood risk, in the Amudarya the economic situation and water management planning, cooperation among actors and control of compliance with regulations were of most concern to participants; and in the Orange results concentrated on legislative setting. It appears that in all models soft issues (perception, behavior, communication etc.) seem to play a larger role than technical ones. We interpret this either as a result of the framing of the exercise itself or the fact that soft issues have largely been neglected in water management so far despite their potential to contribute to a more integrated river basin management (Haase and Bohn 2007, Krysanova et al. 2008). None of the presented exercises were directly linked to a policy process. Nevertheless we think that some of the results may inform ongoing policy processes. In the Tisza river basin, for example, the process was focusing on a rather small local scale and developed specific measures to mitigate flood risk. In the Amudarya river basin, representatives of local administrations became interested in the activities and their results as a means to learn about the views and needs of their stakeholders and about measures that are acceptable to them.
9.4
DISCUSSION
What factors are most relevant in determining the differences and similarities when comparing GMB processes in different river basins? In all three basins we found that it is absolutely necessary to analyze the boundary conditions of the respective river basin before starting any participative action such as a GMB process. Such analysis fosters clarity of the questions to be asked and the issue to be analysed among all participants. In agreement with Reed (2008), we found that a clear objective setting at the beginning of the GMB helps facilitating the process as the stakeholders are clear about the issue they engage for. The ownership of the idea what will be analysed plays a crucial role. In two of the basins this idea came from the stakeholders, and we attribute their high degree of willingness to contribute to the process directly to this sense of ownership and relevance and urgency of the question addressed. In addition, as many researchers have already experienced (e.g. Hare et al. 2006, Pahl-Wostl 2007), time plays an important role, and so do interactions within the group. In all three river basins we NeWater scientists as researchers experienced crucial problems and shortcomings in water management and a worsening status of water quality and quantity. We hypothise that such unsatisfactory boundary conditions and a sense of urgency can create a certain openness among stakeholders to be involved in a participatory modeling processes which may be less when overall boundary conditions are satisfactory. Similar findings were made by Kuper et al. (2009) in Morocco where comparable problems in water management (water scarcity, droughts) exist. A joint GM (> 2 people representing interviewer and respondent) takes more time to be developed but has the intrinsic value of a “shared model or vision”. A mere compilation of face-to-face interviews where scientists are the “joining” element does not have this value. Moreover, the impact of the project team (and prior participation activities within NeWater) on the focus of the GMB topic is considerable. In the Tisza basin, for example, the way the task was framed from the beginning (strong focus on soft measures) may have caused the bias in the model (Figure 9.2). Finally, we have noted that GMB works surprisingly
208
well in post-socialist countries where participation itself and freedom of opinion were banned for a long time leading us as scientists to expect a higher degree of skepticism to collaborate within a GMB process. This supports the idea that independent of a societal regime or situation a participatory GMB process is a useful option to approach pressing but often neglected problems in water management given that it is well facilitated (cf. comparable findings for participation only can be found in the review by Reed, 2008). An overall problem of those GMB processes > 2 people was that policy makers and policy analysts did only irregularly participate and thus their ownership of the idea as well as their share of the model is limited. Since the GMB processes in all three basins supported integrative thinking as intended our main new insights do not concern what are the problems in the respective basins but in which specific context they occur and how the stakeholders see them and their role in the WRM. Particularly novel ideas about potentials and barriers for IWRM had been generated using the participative method of GMB that triggers stakeholders to give their opinion through the open but positively “competitive” atmosphere to contribute to a final model. In doing so, bottlenecks in current water management have been more clearly extracted and brought into a systematic interlinkage. Thus, the design of the process is important. Based on our experience of the three GMB processes we hypothise that larger groups easier facilitate the above mentioned “competition (?)” in terms of bringing a range of different opinions and not-told stories to the light. Here, it was very helpful that the scientists had also knowledge and basic training in system dynamics modeling (at least of the conceptual phase of it). The adoption of the resulting models created as “own” views / models is much higher we judge than that created by an expert team because stakeholders found their own expressions in the model interlinked to those of others. Ultimately, the GMB process helps to elicit and later integrate scientific with local stakeholder knowledge: the variables have been compiled by the stakeholders and the system built-up by (mainly) the scientists. Although this does not prove that better measures come out of the process at the end, it is a prerequisite for creating them. In accordance with an argumentation by Burt (2007) we found that the GMB process helps the participants (including the scientists) to re-define or even broaden their view while identifying major elements of the system together with others as this challenges the own “worldview” when being mirrored by the “worldview” of other stakeholders. As a final step we also evaluated the acceptance of method of GMB in the three basins using the following criteria: (1) willingness of stakeholders to participate in the exercise, (2) positive ex-post evaluation of the GMB process, (3) active involvement of the stakeholders in the GMB discussions, and (4) intention/motivation of stakeholders to use the method to address other issues. To make the results of this evaluation comparable across the case studies, we used direct scoring on a scale from 0 to 10. While scoring, we did not distinguish between the different phases or formats used within one GMB process. The overview in Table 9.5 shows a moderate overall acceptance of the method. It is positive in that in each of the basins basically there is motivation to use the method of GMB again. This can be interpreted as a kind of a learning process that had been initiated. The criteria list in Table 9.5 enables to incorporate different ways of expressing acceptance from the three basins where, as reported in the paper, the procedures have been different. Looking at the criterion "willingness of stakeholders to participate in the exercise", this means that some people left the GMB session in the Tisza, some people refused to do the CM in the Orange, and some people in the Amudarya lost their interest towards the end of the exercise
209
(although nobody left). The GMB “experiment” was temporally limited in all three basins (maximum 2.5 years). Since the design of the GMB process was different comparing the joint group workshops in the Tisza and Amudarya basins and the face-to-face interview in the Orange the overall acceptance of the methods is similar in terms of points given in Table 9.5. This leads to another hypothesis that a group-oriented design might foster the bringing-up of multiple opinions (exchange positive and negative experiences) through a competitive atmosphere, however, a bi-lateral situation might lead to the same level of acceptance. However, a stricter set up of interactions guidelines as argued by Cockerill et al. (2007) could have contributed to the team interaction in at least two of the three cases.
9.5
CONCLUSIONS
The comparison of three GMB processes in an European, Asian and African river basin highlights that involving stakeholders in the analysis of water management barriers and potentials is both necessary and ambitious. Particularly the resulting models of the three processes show that GMB helps to look systematically at the integration of different knowledge frames, conflicting attitudes and ideas of what is wanted and needed. As we have seen in the analysis section of the paper GMB does not necessarily lead to the implementation of a new water management but it offers important new insights what stakeholders think about “their basins” which is a indispensable starting point to reshape the prevailing water management regime. We assess GMB to be somehow an interface between science, resource management and policy making; it recognizes that scientific evidence is a necessary component of complex water management and decision-making. GMB does not actively contribute to policy decisions itself, however, it is an instrument to analyse water management and policy requirements on the one hand. Policy makers could, for example, contribute to the elaborated models bringing in political barriers or win-win-factors that exist beyond the experience of the scientist-stakeholder teams involved in the GMB in our case. And it provides scientific evidence in terms of the requirements to satisfy them on the other. In so far we evaluate GMB to be more of initial and genuine character in the transformation process to AM but as indispensable in its complex and communication-oriented outcomes across regional and biophysical specifics. Acknowledgements First and foremost we would like to thank the local case study teams and the stakeholders in the three river basins for participating in the GMB process and for their kind cooperation in the NeWater project. Special thanks to Piotr Magnuszwelsi and Jan Sendzimir who substantially supported the initial phase of the GMB process in the Tisza river basin. The European Commission supported this work financially (EC contract No. 511179 GOCE).
210
CHAPTER 10 CRITICAL REFLECTIONS ON MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DIALOGUES ON WATER: EXPERIENCES IN THE NETHERLANDS, AUSTRALIA, MEKONG REGION, AND PORTUGAL 6364
Public document 1
2
3
By Louis Lebel , Susana Neto , Patrick Huntjens , Jeff Camkin
4
1
USER, Chiang Mai University, Thailand (
[email protected],
[email protected])
2
Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal (
[email protected])
3
University of Osnabrueck, Germany (
[email protected])
4
Western Australian University, Australia (
[email protected])
Abstract Multi-stakeholder dialogues aim to create and support spaces in which meaningful conversations can take place among diverse stakeholder groups. A key notion is that dialogues can inform, and help shape, more formal negotiation and decision-making processes, by bringing in a wider range of perspectives on needs, impacts and options, and having them deliberated openly. We studied four very different dialogues about water resources management and development issues in four parts of the world: The Netherlands, Australia, Mekong Region in Southeast Asia, and Portugal. In each case the primary unit of analysis was a particular event or cluster of closely related events, while recognizing that these were triggered by different factors (context related) and usually part of a larger process. A set of shared questions were used to guide the analysis of each case covering initiation, format, content and outcomes. Effectiveness of dialogues is clearly dependent upon not just the quality of participation and facilitation as is widely recognized, but also on the preparation and follow-up actions by conveners and participants around main events. It also appears that contextual factors may modify substantially the forms and effectiveness of common dialogue strategies, which deserves further systematic exploration. This study shows it is possible to draw comparative insights about the dialogues by using relatively simple questions about principle events.
63
Neto, S., Lebel, L., Huntjens, P., Camkin, J. (2009) Critical reflections on multi-stakeholder dialogues on water: experiences in Asia and Europe. Conference Paper for the Final International Conference of ASEMWaternet: European Asian Collaborations on Water Resources Management, Changsha, China, 1719 November, 2009. www.asemwaternet.org 64
Submitted to Water Resources Management 211
10.1
INTRODUCTION
Multi-stakeholder dialogues or platforms aim to create and support spaces in which meaningful conversations can take place among diverse stakeholder groups. A key notion is that dialogues can inform, and help shape, more formal planning, negotiation and decision-making processes, by bringing in a wider range of perspectives on needs, impacts and options, and having them deliberated openly. Dialogues themselves need not result in consensus, but well conducted should help manage conflicts, empower disadvantaged groups and support social learning (Leeuwis and Pyburn 2002, Warner 2006). Multi-stakeholder dialogues vary in format but usually include facilitated face-to-face meetings. Who participates is a significant design and analytical issue. A stakeholder can be defined to include all persons, groups and organizations having or showing an interest in an issue. Conveners and actors may exclude others by narrowing the definition, for example, only considering individuals directly affected by a proposed project or who can formally influence an outcome. Stakeholders may include individual citizens and companies, economic and public interest groups, government bodies and experts. Some formats are only suited to small numbers of individuals so issues of representation need to be addressed; others can handle much larger number of participants but often at the expense of lower levels of interaction. Another important format issue is how facilitation, meeting structure and venues influence the openness and multi-directionality of conversations that can take place. In practice there are many different ways in which interaction between stakeholders or between public and government can be managed (Rowe and Frewer 2005, Huitema et al. 2009). Judging performance, or the effectiveness, of a dialogue is challenging. Identification and attribution of specific outcomes is often confounded by other social and political processes that surround dialogue interactions. Nevertheless some of the methods for assessing public participation methods more broadly are likely to be useful. One approach is to consider acceptance and process criteria (Rowe and Frewer 2000). Acceptance criteria that have been suggested include representativeness, independence, early involvement, influence on policy, and transparency. Process criteria include access to resources like information, clear task definition, structured decision-making and cost-effectiveness. For dialogues where effort is to elicit consideration of alternatives other criteria related to being visionary and deliberative should also be considered (Dore 2007). The knowledge content of a dialogue is also critical – what topics and issues are covered and how well informed debate is about them. This often depends on access to scientific and experienced-based knowledge. At the same time deliberative opportunities – time to question, seek clarification, discussion assumptions and examine arguments – are thought to be critical for dealing with contested knowledge claims and explore alternatives and poorly known risks and interests. In the field of water resources development and management multi-stakeholder dialogue have become popular. The World Commission on Dams (2000) was a very large multi-stakeholder dialogue (Hemmati 2002). Many other organizations have convened water-related dialogues (Dore 2007). Expectations from dialogues are often higher than achievements, especially once participants demand more than just sharing of information and improved understanding (Warner 2006). It is not clear if this was because they
212
were done poorly or because circumstances and other factors were not right. Multi-stakeholder dialogues need to be reflected upon more critically. In this paper we adopt a broad definition of multi-stakeholder dialogue, accepting at face value the claims of conveners that they aim to create and support spaces in which meaningful conversations can take place among stakeholder groups and then analyze the extent to which this was actually so and if this and other features can help explain performance.
10.2
RESEARCH DESIGN
We studied four multi-stakeholder water dialogues (Table 10.1). In each case the main unit of analysis was a particular event or cluster of closely related events, while recognizing that these were usually part of a larger process. The dialogues were purposively chosen to represent a mixture of relatively state-led and dominated processes to others with greater civil-society engagement and control of the agenda. Their geographical scope varied from small areas within one country to a multi-country region. We now briefly introduce each of the case studies. The IJsseldelta case focuses on two important periods when public participation and stakeholder participation took place (respectively in 2005 and 2006) during the process of developing the masterplan for IJsseldelta South in the Overijssel province, the Netherlands. The area was confronted with a number of spatial challenges in water management, infrastructure, transport, urban extension, recreation and nature. The Western Australia (WA) case focuses on events in 2002 leading up to and including the Premier’s Water Symposium on water issues in the southwest of Western Australia. Declining water storage in the dams that serve the capital city of Perth provided the impetus for water reform to which the Symposium made a significant contribution. The Mekong case focuses on a regional event held in Lao PDR 2006 which was convened in response to a need for greater public consultation on several plans of multilateral agencies for expanding investments in water infrastructure in the Mekong River basin. The dialogue was an alternative platform to the those convened by the international organizations at the regional level and was intended to influence how water governance and basin development planning were proceeding. The Guadiana case focuses on a public review of the first environmental impact assessment made in 1995 for the Alqueva dam. The dam had been envisaged and planned in the Guadiana River Basin for a long time. The multi-purpose project was initially approved in 1975 and building started in 1976 but was then abandoned for a period to be resumed after the 1995 review. Although labeled an EIA the discussions around the assessment were much broader encompassing alternative views of social development for the 2 Altentejo region – one with much more water for irrigation and other activities. Most of the 250 km reservoir lies in Portugal with a small area in Spain.
213
Table 10.1 - Selected dialogue processes in Asian and European basins
Dialogue
Geographical scope
Focal year events
Design sessions for the Master plan for IJsseldelta Community water forums and Premier’s Water Symposium Exploring water futures together: Mekong Region Waters Dialogue Environmental impact assessment public review of the Alqueva Dam, Guadiana River Basin
Delta of the river IJssel in western part of Overijssel province, Netherlands Southwest of Western Australia
2005 and 2006
Lao PDR, Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar, China & Thailand Alentejo Region, Portugal
2006
2002
1995
To guide the analysis of the dialogues we agreed on a set of shared guiding questions (Table 10.2). These consider both some of the triggers and preparatory activities leading up to the events that are the focus of the case study, as well as the follow-up activities and contributions to outcomes. The primary data sources were documents about the dialogue events and interviews with participants or conveners involved in their preparation, implementation and follow-up. In all four cases the authors were also in some way involved in the dialogue process.
Table 10.2 - Simple analytical framework for comparing dialogues used in this paper
________________________________________________________________ Initiation What triggered the dialogue? Who convened? How was support mobilized? Format Who was invited to participate, and who attended? Who spoke or wrote? What venue? What was the format of sessions? What was the structure of the event? What kind of organizational and presentation formats were used? How were exchanges between participants facilitated? Content What information was made available to participants beforehand? Was it relevant? Was their sufficient time to review the input materials? What issues and topics were addressed during the dialogue? Which were excluded or avoided? What kinds of evidence and arguments were used? Which assumptions were challenged and on what issues was their wider agreement? Did participants learn useful things from each other?
214
Outcome What follow-up was their by conveners and participants? How did the dialogue influence negotiations or decisions? __________________________________________________________________
10.3
INITIATION
The four dialogues had distinct beginnings. In each case there were either specific triggers or windows of opportunity that some actors were prepared for and used to launch or engage in a dialogue. We first look at each of the dialogues individually and then draw some brief comparisons related to initiation. The IJsseldelta dialogue was triggered by a new policy. In December 2003 the Minister of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment (VROM) invited all provinces to identify sample or pilot projects to be included in the National Spatial Strategy (‘Nota Ruimte’) (VROM, 2004). This strategy articulated a policy shift from "imposing restrictions" to "promoting developments". With this strategy the Cabinet-Balkenende III decentralised spatial planning. At the same time it consolidated water management as a fundamental principle of spatial planning. Less detailed regulation by central government meant fewer barriers and greater latitude for other levels of government, members of the public and the private sector to influence development planning. Early 2004 the Province of Overijssel took the opportunity provided by Nota Ruimte to launch the IJsseldelta project. The project comprised two sub-projects: National Landscape IJsseldelta and IJsseldelta-South. We focus on the multistakeholder dialogues of IJsseldelta-South in this paper. The labeling as a “pilot” project explicitly articulated the wish to develop a masterplan together with stakeholders covering usually distinct issues of urban extension, infrastructure development, and water management. The project started in 2004. The WA dialogue was triggered by a drought within the context of growing acceptance of a shift in the climate. An extended period of low flows to public water supply storage dams, declining groundwater levels, rapid population growth and development pressure in the south west of Western Australia created concern amongst water management organisations. The driest two year period on record in 2001-2002 triggered widespread community concern about water and government polling reportedly indicated water was the #1 political issue. “When we came to government there was a serious drought and clear advice that WA’s rainfall levels would not return to where they had averaged over the last 100 years, let alone the last 30 years. The issue was given priority within government and measures taken to secure long-term supplies” Dr Geoff Gallop, pers. comm. 2009). In response the Premier established a Ministerial Council on Water, a State Water Taskforce of government agencies with responsibility for water, and a series of 17 community water forums to disseminate information and capture community views on water. The Outcomes of the community water forums were to be fed into the Premier’s Water Symposium. The Mekong dialogue was triggered by draft strategies and plans of multi-lateral organizations which appeared to be ushering in a new era of large scale water infrastructure development but without 215
adequate public consultation. In Vientiane, Lao PDR, in July 2006 the World Conservation Union, the Thailand Environment Institute, the International Water Management Institute and the Mekong Program on Water Environment and Resilience (M-POWER) convened the “Mekong Region Waters Dialogue: exploring water futures together” (IUCN et al. 2007a, 2007b). The regional multi-stakeholder platform was organized to “provide an opportunity for high-quality, multi-faceted debate and learning that will contribute to improving water governance in the Mekong Region”. A key part of the meeting and report specifically asked participants to evaluate the role and governance performance of the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and Mekong River Commission in basin development with a focus on the Mekong Water Resources Assistance Strategy (World Bank and Asian Development Bank 2006) and the Mekong River Commission’s draft Strategic Plan. The idea was not to replace any public consultations that should take place but to begin an exchange of views on their content, the roles of these international organizations, and other critical water governance issues in the region. The Guadiana dialogue was triggered by the release of new project information. The state launched a public review of the environmental impact assessment of the Alqueva Dam with the aim of gaining public acceptance for the project which had earlier been widely criticized by some NGOs. The Installing Commission of the Alqueva dam decided to submit the First Environmental Impact Study (1987) to a formal EIA process, according to the Portuguese Environmental Impact Assessment Law (Decree-Law 186/90), opening to public discussion the Environmental Impact Study of the project “Integrated Study of Alqueva”. Though the cultural background in Portugal is not the one of a very participative society, rather a very passive one, in the case of the Guadiana, and particularly in the building of the Alqueva Dam, there was nevertheless an unusual level of discussion and participation, in particular of agriculture associations and non-governmental environmental organizations. Traditionally oriented to a ‘dry vision’ of land in this region, the input of a new huge source of water has provoked many reactions, positive and negative. Each of the dialogues arose in a particular context where key actors were to some extent prepared or waiting for an opportunity to come together to discuss. Thus, an alliance of actors in the Mekong Region was already cooperating to lift the standard of constructive engagement in the public sphere about significant water decisions prior to the planning of the regional dialogue. In November 2004, several members of this alliance helped set up and then participated as keynote speakers and facilitators in, a half-day roundtable in Bangkok Using Water, Caring for Environment: Challenges for the Mekong Region attended by almost fifty development donors and senior government officials (Ministers) from Mekong Region countries, co-hosted by the Thai Minister of Natural Resources and Environment and IUCN. In the IJsseldelta stakeholders realized that it was no longer possible to find a solution to various water management and planning challenges through sectoral approaches (Rooy, et al., 2006, p.85). The launch of a new policy on special planning projects created a platform meeting a real need. In the Guadiana case the historical preparation was much longer: the main stakeholders took positions and made statements either spoken or written through the media. This process stretched over more than 20 years (1981 until the opening of the gates at 2002 and beyond). In the Western Australian case both the public and bureaucracy was already full aware of seasonal water scarcity problems and issues around water management. Prior interest in, and recognition of, a shifting climate also helped mobilize interest in the forums and symposium. Dialogues were convened in response to a combination of triggers and background activities that prepared the way for their emergence. The immediate triggers were different – a new policy, a legal 216
requirement, a drought and investment plans. In all but the Mekong case – which notably was an international setting – state actors convened the process. As we shall see in subsequent sections the initiation of multi-stakeholder dialogues had some important consequences for format, content and outcomes.
10.4
FORMAT
A basic issue of format is who participates and how. Convening power is important to success of a dialogue as it influences who accepts invitations to participate and what effort they put into making it work. This is typically an outcome of the initiation process. Other elements of format include the structure of the agenda, duration of the event, venue choice, how interactions among participants were facilitated and the ways expert knowledge are included. The four dialogues we studied diverged substantially in format. We look at each separately highlighting distinct features then consider some comparisons. During the process of developing the masterplan for IJsseldelta South there were two important periods in which public participation and stakeholder participation took place. In period 1 (from 7 April to 14 May 2o05) six weeks of public participation took place in three stages : information supply, discussions (public hearing and debates) and expression of opinions. In the stage of information supply project staff presented five scenarios to the public. Subsequently, citizens and stakeholders were able to provide feedback during the public hearings, where there was ample time for discussion, , including individual and group debates and questions/inputs from the audience. The end of the first period was marked by th the submission of the 6 scenario. The sixth scenario was developed by citizens of the town of Kamperveen and nearby areas, with support from experts provided by the project group . Period 2 was from February to March 2006 when the so-called design sessions (‘ontwerpsessies’) were organized. The main objective of design sessions was to further develop the masterplan, based on the building blocks and th 6 scenario being developed previously. Period 2 comprised almost two months for preparation, implementation, evaluation and reporting activities, although the design sessions themselves took only one full day. The format of the stakeholder dialogues in period 1 clearly shows a shift from one-directional communication during information supply (by members of the administrative board, in particular Provincial Deputy Rietkerk), towards multi-directional communication during the public hearings and debates (with inputs from citizens, other stakeholders, experts, policymakers and politicians), and moving back to one-directional during the expression of opinions by means of questionnaires and letters from stakeholders (including citizens) to the project group. The design sessions during period 2 are characterized by multi-directional communications all along. In general, all interactions were 65 characterized by an open dialogue based on jointly developed plans (e.g. planning scenarios and building blocks) and cooperation based on mutual respect and mutual benefit.
65
P. 8 Open dialogue. I would want to see some substantiations because many of such discussions take place against the background of a draft proposal by the government 217
Although the Province of Overijssel plays a major role in the project as a director of the planning process, it is very much dependent upon others. As a matter of fact, the plan for the IJsseldelta is made in close cooperation with the stakeholders such as the municipalities, neighboring provinces, the water boards and many non-governmental organizations in the region. The municipality of Kampen, water board Groot Salland and the Province of Flevoland are the most important partners in the region. But the national Government has a decisive position in the project too. The national ministries involved are the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality and the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management. And last but not least, the public was mobilized to participate. In Western Australia, the process of the community water forums feeding into the Premier’s Water Symposium, and the Symposium providing recommendations to Government, was explained at the beginning of each community water forum. Outcomes of each Community Water Forum were recorded in an Outcomes Reports and provided to delegates to the Symposium. Attendees at the Local Water Forums were given the opportunity to nominate for attendance at the Symposium. The main event, the Premier’s Water Symposium, was a three-day forum held in the Legislative Assembly building of the Western Australian Parliament, with delegates sitting in the seats occupied by Members of Parliament during normal Parliamentary sittings. The choice of venue was significant in that indicated the seriousness with which government took the public consultation process. One hundred people attended the forum. These were deliberately sourced equal parts from: (i) experts in water, land planning and other domains; (ii) nominees from the 17 community water forums; and (iii) people selected randomly from the roll of those eligible to vote in Western Australia. For three days, delegates the Premier’s Water Symposium sat in the chairs of the legislators debated key water issues. The Symposium was organized by the Western Australian Government Department of Premier and Cabinet, with significant support by major government agencies with a stake in water issues through the State Water Taskforce. Operational practicalities were managed by paid contractors. The first morning of the Symposium involved opening presentations by the Chairman (who was appointed by the Premier), by the Premier, by government agency staff giving an overview of the community water forums and by expert presentations on two key contextual issues, climate change and the impact of climate change on water resources. Information packs provided to delegates before the Symposium and the presentations at the Symposium provided guidance on issues to focus on and informed delegates for later discussions. All delegates then participated in breakout sessions to discuss the issues with subsequent reporting back to the full delegation. There were five Break Out Groups, each containing 20 delegates. Each Group was assigned a non-delegate Facilitator, a Recorder and a Technical Adviser. Each group discussed the same issues and was asked to nominate a reporter for each session who provided a four minute report to the Forum during plenary sessions. Key Conclusions, Recommendations, Information Needs and Issues identified in each break-out session were recorded. Broad areas of consensus from each of the break out sessions were identified for consideration in The Way Forward session which would occur on Day 3. This pattern of presentations, breakout sessions and reporting to all delegates continued for the rest of day 1, all of day 2 and day 3 up until lunchtime. From 2pm to 4pm on the 3rd and final day the Chair led a session to identify the overall conclusions and recommendations from the Symposium. During The Way Forward session on Day 3 delegates, facilitated by the Chair, synthesised their previous discussions to develop an overarching set of conclusions and recommendations 218
for government. As these were developed they were visible to all delegates on projection screens and formed a draft report to the Premier at the end of the third day, which was later word-smithed. In the Mekong dialogue non-state actors from local communities, academia, non-governmental organizations and private sector participated in discussions along with government officials and representatives of multi-lateral agencies (IUCN et al. 2007b). The main dialogue meeting lasted two full days and was held in Vientiane, the capital of Lao PDR. Participants with a base in either Thailand or Lao PDR made up 64% of participants and altogether 86% came from the Mekong River basin countries. A key feature of the format of the program were 1 hour sessions with pairs of keynote speakers – one from the main regional agency being discussed and the other by an analyst. Breakout sessions on the second day looked specifically at the plans of the three targeted agencies. In between other breakout sessions looked at more specific water governance issues, for example, related to hydropower, irrigation and fisheries and on the final day different ways to improve water governance (IUCN et al. 2007a). One challenge and weakness of the format was that the main language used was English which for many of the participants was not their first language. Simultaneous translation services may have allowed more diverse group of participants to attend, and changed the balance of contributions in discussions though facilitators were aware of the challenge and made substantial effort to give all around the many tables an equal chance to speak. The process of public discussion of the Environmental Impact Study of the project “Integrated Study of Alqueva” was opened for 30 days, after the conclusion of the study in 1995, from March 29 to May 12. The full Environmental Impact Study was available for the public in several institutions including the Portuguese Institute for Environmental Promotion (IPAMB), two Regional Directorates for the Environment, the Regional Coordination Commission of Alentejo and 23 municipalities. A non-technical summary of the study was available for public consultation in 84 villages (Videira et al. 2002). In order to announce the process of public discussion of the study, the proponent of the project sent press notes to national and regional newspapers and radio stations and has distributed pamphlets and posters. During the process, two public hearings took place in the cities of Évora (April 26, 1995) and Beja (April 27, 1995). Among the main objectives of the hearings was to present information about impacts, answer questions and promote debate. Several of the dialogues had special ways to deal with experts. In the WA dialogue most of the formal presenters were there to provide knowledge inputs but were not themselves delegates. During the second period in the IJsseldelta dialogues four design groups with stakeholders and citizens were created, with at least one spatial planner/urban developer/architect per group who was able to visualize the inputs. At the same time there was a separate group with experts. This group could be consulted by the design groups in case there were questions. This separate group of experts was also constructed in order to prevent the design groups being dominated by experts. In the lead-up event to the Mekong dialogue specific roundtables were allocated to high officials with planned seating and facilitator. A similar strategy was used in one of the follow-up workshops where scenarios were built with participants of the northsouth economic corridor project. In the Guadiana case, there were experts in some of the stakeholder representatives (NGO’s and Universities) and also in the proponent of the project side (private consultants and universities) being some of the questions addressed made at a technical and scientific level.
219
The dialogues shared some features in terms of composition of participants. Women were made up about a third of participants and much smaller fraction of speakers in the main events in both the WA and Mekong dialogues. A feature of the Mekong Dialogue was the relatively low fraction of formal presentations by national government officials in the Mekong dialogue (less than 20%). The WA dialogue paid special attention to selection of participants aiming to achieve adequate representation of residents while also providing expert inputs through speaker roles. One indictor of quality of a dialogue is the multi-directionality of conversations. Participants in the IJsseldelta dialogue noted a shift between first and second periods from more one-directional to more multi-directional formats and sessions in the second period. Breakout sessions and smaller roundtables generally gave participants substantial opportunities to contribute in the WA and Mekong dialogues; much more so than was usually possible in plenaries. Public hearings and debates provide some opportunities for two-way conversations while submissions by stakeholders in parts of the Guadiana and IJsseldelta process were obviously more one-way. As the cases were defined here the IJseldelta dialogue involved more discrete iterations of interaction among participants than the other dialogue processes. This allowed new ideas to be introduced, argued through and eventually become accepted by others. In much shorter or largely one-off interactions these possibilities are much more constrained. At the same time this difference between dialogue cases is partly an artifact of where in time you draw the boundaries of a dialogue. In the Mekong dialogue several the stakeholders had interacted with each other before and after the regional event in other venues underlining that the processes of lobbying, negotiation and learning are often on-going. Evaluation of the dialogue processes by participants varied. In the IJsseldelta participants were very positive about the multi-stakeholder process, since it created more understanding for each others’ positions and interests. They were also appreciative of the carefully planned input of knowledge and information by thematic experts. In the Mekong dialogue participants concluded that it was a suitable place to “inform, and be informed” but also complained about lack of time to engage fully with complex issues. A few participants in Mekong dialogue, including the conveners, were concerned that the event might “legitimize the draft strategic plans of MRC, ADB, and the World Bank”. The conveners wrote formal letters to these organizations indicating that the dialogue should not be considered a replacement for a more extensive public consultation on their plans (IUCN et al. 2007a). In the Guadiana case some groups, in particular farmers and agricultural associations, were frustrated that their opinions were not being taken into account. Other local populations, on the other hand, were largely supportive of the process. Despite attention and diversity of formats a recurrent challenge for conveners of dialogues is preventing domination of conversations by particular individuals and ensuring there is adequate time to consider complex information and arguments. The process of selecting participants is clearly very important to which issues are likely to be addressed and, along with quality of facilitation, how well.
10.5
CONTENT
By content we mean the information supplied to participants, issues or topics addressed and kinds of arguments made. The four dialogues we studied dealt with different water-related management or development issues.
220
The spatial planning challenges in the IJsseldelta are complex. Several major projects are planned in the coming decades. The municipality of Kampen has planned some 4000 houses, a new railway lines being constructed and two highways will be reconstructed in the area. At the time that the process started these plans were already incorporated in the regional planning documents for this area (Overijssel 2000+ and Omgevingsplan Flevoland). As part of the National “Room for Rivers” policy a bypass near Kampen was planned for after 2015 to increase safety against flooding along the river Rhine system. All these separate, potentially conflicting spatial developments had to be taken into account during the participative planning process in IJsseldelta Zuid. Because of this complexity the moderator of the process introduced five planning models (scenarios), being developed by project staff. During development of the scenarios a large group of stakeholders was already involved in the form of a feedback group. These planning models were used to provide a starting point for interaction during the multi-stakeholder process. A number of ready-for-use planning sub-models (for cutting and pasting separate elements) allowed participants to work at a higher level of abstraction. Some professionals felt their interests were not being represented clearly, but this approach was well received by citizens. The moderator was convinced that such kind of interaction would yield a better plan. During the information sessions in period 1, a lot of resistance against the proposed plans arose. In reaction to this resistance the province, notably by Deputy Rietkerk, offered support to inhabitants to develop alternative plans. Inhabitants of Kamperveen submitted an alternative plan (scenario 6), because the river bypass in the other scenario’s affected their local community. Scenario 6 gained support in the press and wider community. A number of “building blocks” were derived by the municipalities, provinces and the waterboard and used as a basis for the Masterplan. These included, for example, that: the by-pass must be permanently filled with water and navigable and that there must be additional space for nature and water recreation. Before the fifteen building blocks could be used for further developing the Masterplan (during the design sessions in period 2) a number of research assignments had to be completed first. The design sessions in period 2 (February –March 2006) were intended to further develop the Masterplan, based on the 6th scenario and the building blocks. During this period a large group of 50 people were involved, ranging from members of the project group (including experts), members from the administrative group, stakeholders from the feedback group, and representatives from the towns. During the sessions ideas were discussed, experts consulted and maps constructed. The maps from each group were presented and a high level of consensus for certain solutions emerged. In the WA dialogue key inputs for the main symposium came from the 17 local water forums. Understanding the local water forums is important as they framed much of the agenda, input and background material for the Premier’s Water Symposium. The agenda for each community water forum was tailored to address both whole of State issues and specific local issues. The Wanneroo Community Water Forum provides an illustrative example where a meeting of 100 participants helped improve understanding of community values with the Gnangara Mound – an important underground water source with significant ecological and social values - and how it might be managed. The key output was a report “Community Water Forum: Sustainability of the Gnangara Mound. Summary of Outcomes” which documented the top 6 key issues, top 6 values for the Mound and top 6 ways forward, as identified by participants votes. This Report, along with one from each of the Community Water Forums was provided as background material for the 100 participants in the Premier’s Water Symposium.
221
The 100 delegates to the Premier’s Water Symposium received an information pack several days prior to the Symposium. The Premier’s Water Symposium included 26 presentations on a wide range of water issues. Topics covered included: overviews of local water forums, climate change, water supply and demand issues, water values, demand management, sustainable use, and experiences from another city. The Symposium structure of presentations followed by break-out sessions supported discussion and debate on any of the issues raised in the presentations. Issues for discussion in the break-out sessions were determined by the delegates themselves. No issues were ‘off the agenda’. The Mekong dialogue examined the roles and regional strategies of the Mekong River Commission (MRC), Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the World Bank. It also gave opportunities for alternative perspectives on water resources development to be articulated and other critical water governance issues in the Mekong region to be raised. The final working session focused ways to improve water governance in the region. The knowledge inputs were collected and published as a set of resource papers – some contributions were in the form of power point presentations and others as short analytical essays (IUCN et al. 2007b). A key draft document – the Mekong Water Resources Assistance Strategy (World Bank and Asian Development Bank 2006) – was only released to the public shortly before the dialogue and partly because of the event. Many participants complained that it should have been available earlier so that it could be properly studied before the dialogue. The initial report to come out from the Mekong dialogue included as annex a set of formal letters of feedback from the conveners of the dialogue to the MRC including comments on its draft Strategic Plan 2006-10, to the ADB on its North South Economic Corridor proposals, and to both the World Bank and ADB about its draft Mekong Water Resources Assistance Strategy (IUCN et al. 2007a). A recurrent message was for these agencies to expand and improve the quality of their public consultations. In the public hearings in the Guadiana dialogue 14 stakeholders (including 9 individuals, 3 environmental NGO’s and 2 representatives from local municipalities) made formal inquiries to the project proponents and members of the Impact Assessment Commission. Topics included Alqueva dam operation FSL at 152 meters, the logging plan (looging of old groath hold and cork oaks, destruction of habitats), the submersion of Aldeia da Luz (conditions in the the new village), the submersion of pre-historic engravings (loss of archaeological sites), the Irrigation Plan, Tourism Activities, and Transfer of an important industrial pulp plant (Portucel Recicla). Inquiries were made about environmental impacts, socio-economic impacts and planned mitigation measures. Written submissions on the Environmental Impact Study were made by 6 individuals, 3 municipalities, 5 environmental NGOSs, 1 biologist association and 2 universities. Most common objections to the Study were in relation to fauna impacts, ecological flows, geological impacts, water quality impacts and the irrigation plan (Videira et al. 2002). One of the main limitations of the assessment and subsequent public review process in terms of content was that the quality of information and key uncertainties were not taken into account. In each of the dialogues expert knowledge inputs played an important role, but with variation in how much expert knowledge was contested. In IJsseldelta knowledge and information played an important role during the process and at was at some points even crucial to make decisions in principle. Knowledge input came from the 12 involved governments (often thematic experts) and a dozen consultancy firms and knowledge institutes. Even so: “the way knowledge is provided during the process might be more important than the knowledge itself” (Arjen Otten & Jan Bakker). In three dialogues knowledge of citizens
222
and non-conventional bureaucrat or academic experts was important. In IJsseldelta and WA dialogues residents made many inputs directly. In the Mekong dialogue participation by civil society groups was high and raised awareness about the interests and rights of various marginalized livelihood groups, in particular, fishers and small-scale farmers. Conveners by initial declaring the purpose of a dialogue and then through the program they prepare for meetings and instructions they give to facilitators have a large influence on what topics can be effectively addressed. In the Guadiana the scope for debate in what essentially an exercise in gaining public acceptance for a project was strongly constrained by design. In the IJsseldelta case the focus on building consensus around a plan also acted as a strong filter on discussions. In the WA and Mekong cases the framings were done more through the topics covered by keynote speakers and the tasks set for discussion groups. For example, in the Mekong case sessions analyzed the roles of a multilateral organization and its strategic development plan. Participants evaluate the timeliness and quality of information provided before, during and after dialogues by organizers. Substantial effort is often needed to satisfy the information expectations of diverse participants in a multi-stakeholder process. Participants need time to carefully study complex reports and presentations. The WA dialogue paid a lot of attention to these information management issues and this was a major factor in its success. The content of a dialogue is easily forgotten in the enthusiasm of seeing different people talk constructively with each other. Facilitators and conveners are often satisfied with the process elements, but in the end if there is to be influence on outcomes having dealt effectively with substantial issues is also crucial. To do so requires access to, and effective use of, scientific and experience-based knowledge. Preparing adequate background information for participants well in advance of key events, and providing ways of accessing additional information during them – through keynote talks, question-and-answer sessions, wandering experts or documentation exhibits – has a large influence on the quality and substance of discussions.
10.6
OUTCOMES
The potential pathways to impact for a dialogue depend on the plans of conveners and how participants choose to follow-up on their interactions. In this section we look at efforts to follow-up dialogues by organizers and evidence of outcomes. The birth of the 6th scenario was probably the most remarkable outcome of the IJssedelta stakeholder dialogue, and according to some of the participants, including the convener, also the most interesting learning experience. In the case of IJsseldelta Zuid there was no way of knowing before, based on the five planning scenarios, which one of them would appear on top – “that is how genuine stakeholder participation should be” noted a moderator. The key output of the multi-stakeholder dialogue was a widely supported master plan completed in 2006. Within the Masterplan the 6 spatial challenges in the area (housing, infrastructure, leisure, nature, agriculture and river bypass) are combined and integrated. One could say, that the result has become more than the sum of its parts. The Masterplan is broadly supported by the public, because it is based upon a draft of the bypass (the 6th scenario) that was made by the public (mostly farmers, assisted by planners and professionals). In 2007 a gentlemen’s agreement
223
was signed by 11 governmental organizations, with the intention to work together to implement the Masterplan. Another 11 non-governmental organizations supported the plan. Recently, the spatial plans of the Provinces of Overijssel and Flevoland have been reviewed. A strategic environmental (impact) assessment (SEA) was part of this review. Within this SEA several alternatives for the Masterplan were studied. The decision making process has led to several modifications of the Masterplan. The current plan resembles in almost every aspect the most environmentally friendly alternative of the SEA. Although some dialogues reach a high point at which participants get a clear sense of achievement, often it is the immediate follow-up that secures influence on decisions and policy, as being shown by the examples in this section. The outcomes of the WA dialogue are captured in WA Water Symposium, Volume 1, Summary of Outcomes. This paper contains a Foreword from the Symposium Chair, a statement of 35 considerations identified by the delegates and 22 recommendations from the delegates for Government to implement. In response to the dialogue the Government’s State Water Taskforce developed its first State Water Strategy, released by the Premier in February 2003. That strategy provided a starting point and a reference point for water reform in Western Australia over the next 5 years. Among the aims was a target of achieving a 14% reduction in per capita consumption from the Integrated Water Supply Scheme serving Perth and other centres in the southwest of Western Australia. The Strategy included 84 tasks of which, for example, 30 were related to Water Conservation and Efficiency and 22 to Resource Protection and Management. The tasks were allocated by the Department of Premier and Cabinet, under guidance from a new State Water Council, to local, state and Australian Government agencies with responsibility for implementation. These lead agencies were required to provide resources and set priorities for the allocated tasks, supported by other agencies and working groups established to support the implementation. The inputs of the multi-stakeholder dialogue were explicitly acknowledged. In his letter to Delegates on 6 May 2004, attaching a One Year Progress Report, the Premier, Dr Geoff Gallop, stated: “Many issues were raised at the Community Water Forums that were held throughout Western Australia, culminating in the Water Symposium at Parliament House in October 2002. As a participant you helped to develop and recommend ways to ensure the sustainable use and management of our precious water resources. In February 2003 I launched the State Water Strategy, which provides a practical platform for implementation of solutions to our water issues. This strategy reflects the input from the Water Forums and the Symposium.” The State Water Strategy established processes that continued to drive water reform, including a Statewide review of irrigation efficiency commencing in 2004. The Irrigation Review Steering Committee which oversaw the review identified 9 key directions and made wide-ranging recommendations to Government in its 2005 Irrigation Review Steering Committee Final Report. In September 2005 the WA Government established the Water Reform Implementation Committee to provide detailed advice on progressing water reform in Western Australia, in response to the Final Report of the Irrigation Review Steering Committee. The report of the Water Reform Implementation Committee A blueprint for water reform in Western Australia Final advice to the Western Australian Government, included 72 recommendations in relation to the nine Key directions from the Irrigation Review Steering Committee. These reforms subsequently led to a review of institutional arrangements, the preparation of Western 224
Australia’s first State Water Policy, first State Water Plan, a commitment to overhaul the State’s outdated water legislation and ongoing stakeholder dialogue in water through a State Water Forum. The initial outcomes of the Mekong dialogue were collected in a pair of reports summarizing meeting findings and resource papers (IUCN et al. 2007a, 2007b). The dialogue contributed to the downplaying and eventual disappearance of the Mekong Water Resources Assistance Strategy. It also triggered further interest in multi-stakeholder dialogue process nationally and regionally. Follow-up meetings included a participatory scenario building exercise focussed on exploring the Asian Development Banks’ plans for the north-south economic corridor organized by M-POWER (Foran and Lebel 2007). IUCN also organized several national-level follow-up activities. The Cambodian Water Working Group held 12 meetings and two study tours with an emphasis on irrigation and its interactions with other water users. A key cross-cutting theme of the Mekong dialogue was the need for greater transparency and stakeholder participation in basin development planning (IUCN et al. 2007a).The demonstration effect of the dialogue and follow-ups was important for phase 2 of the Basin Development Plan process of the MRC which was beginning to place much greater emphasis on multi-stakeholder engagement (MRC 2005). MRC organized the first regional stakeholder consultation forum on the second phase of the BDP programme on 12-13 March 2008, Vientiane, Laos (MRC 2008). Members from the water governance network M-POWER provided design and facilitation support and suggestions on the draft agenda to ensure adequate discussion of important topics. The key messages from the consultation re-affirm the shift towards greater participation: “through an open BDP process the MRC has earned greater trust and confidence from stakeholders and is committed to building ownership through genuine participation” and that “developing workable participatory processes is more important than delivery of a Basin Development Plan at a specific point in time” (MRC 2008). Among many issues mentioned the trade-off between hydropower development and fisheries was highlighted (see: Friend et al. 2009). Climate change was also signaled as an issue that needs to be taken into account in exploring future water availability. A second regional stakeholder consultation forum modeled on the first but with the MRC more firmly in control of agenda and facilitation was held in mid-October 2009. In the Guadiana case public engagement followed the traditional procedure, according to the EIA legislation, with a period of 30 days of public discussion after the conclusion of the study. From the State side, the ‘dialogue’ could be characterized by a unidirectional dissemination of information on the project by the State and assessment of stakeholder’s response. This dialogue was promoted and intermediated by IPAMB, which was created to play an independent role in the environmental impact assessment procedures, between the State and the public. Following the public hearings, the evaluation of the statements received, and the Public Discussion Report presented by IPAMB, the Evaluation Commission concluded that there was a satisfactory response from the citizens in this process. The Project was widely supported with basically only the Environmental NGO’s clearly against it. Alqueva was seen as the big solution to regional development challenges in Alentejo. The hypothetical social benefits (e.g. regional development) of the Project were the main arguments to proceed with it, despite the fact that economic benefits of the AMP (irrigation, energy and water supply) are not clearly demonstrated and the environmental impacts of the Project are very significant due to the submersion of a very large area. The decision of the EU to fund the AMP, due to the regional development perspective, was also a very important step to resume the Project and start the construction work in 1995.
225
Public participation process at that time had little impact on development options of the project. In the preparatory studies the various scientific and technical panels did influence the scope of the eventual assessment but their briefs did not allow consideration of project alternatives or different visions for the region. The review process of EIA was a consultation with public hearing and written inputs that analysts say had no effect on overall decision-making process (Videira et al. 2003). However, participation did have an important role after the approval of the project – during the implementation of the mitigation and monitoring programs. This was made possible by the inclusion of 49 representatives from national, regional and local authorities, environmental NGO’s and agriculture organizations in the Environmental Accompanying Commission of the AMP (CAIA), created in 1997. CAIA has been following very closely the EDIA’s environmental management of infrastructure in the Alqueva project. The members of CAIA had monthly meetings for discussing the main issues concerning the AMP construction works and the environmental management of the Project. The links between the dialogue and political process varied in important ways across the four case studies. In the Guadiana case the public consultation exercise was an automatic consequence of laws and followed a conventional and largely pre-determined path, but the strength of the public involvement with press and journalists writing extensively about this issue, (even without almost any impact in the final decision, which was really previously taken) had relevant consequences in the social perception of public participation effectiveness (through frustration and negative feelings as well). In the IJsseldelta and WA cases the province and state, respectively, as convener was also in control but the content of deliberations and influence on decisions was less predictable and dependent on stakeholder inputs. The close and relatively direct links to the political process resulted in clear influence on plans and strategies. The Mekong case differs from the others in that it is in a transboundary setting where regional institutions are relatively weak compared to national-level arrangements. Moreover the conveners were most like non-state actors although IUCN has states as members. The links to political process at national level were necessarily indirect. An element of the effectiveness of each of these otherwise different dialogues was the boundary or relationship between the dialogue and negotiations or decisions started were clear; ambiguity about direct decision-making influence would have been a hindrance to the dialogues effectiveness regardless of where on the spectrum of direct influence they sat. In some cases, such as the Mekong dialogue, the lack of direct and immediate links to decisions was important for sensitive topics to be raised and discussed. Inter-governmental discussions would not have been able to make much headway on some topics. In the Western Australian case, the Symposium and associated Local Water Forum process marks a shift towards increasing interaction between non government organizations interested in water. The outcomes of a dialogue in the short and medium-term are enhance by timely and quality follow-up by organizers, especially where the post-dialogue process is not already strongly institutionalized. Leadership important in initiation is also crucial to securing clear outcomes. Outcomes need to be assessed against the purpose of a dialogue and expectations of organizers and participants. Expectations often exceed outcomes especially once post-event euphoria has passed suggesting that care is needed not to over-sell the significance of dialogues in the wider political process.
226
10.7
DISCUSSION
Dialogues vary in how effectively they enable meaningful conversations among stakeholders and what impact they have on policy. In this paper we looked at four very different case studies to highlight how design issues arise in several dimensions from initiation through format and content to intended outcomes. How and the context in which dialogues are initiated lay the foundations for what subsequently can be achieved. The immediate trigger for dialogue varied but this in itself was not so important for effectiveness as in each case some actor groups were prepared beforehand and could mobilize to use the space created. In the three of the four cases we considered that state convened. The identity of the convenor effects stakeholder perceptions of legitimacy, credibility and independence. The type of public participation enabled in each dialogue was largely a consequence of its format, from who was invited or could respond, to public calls and how interactions were facilitated. In terms of flows of information the Guadiana case was more like an example of public communication and consultation whereas the other three cases had more substantive elements of public participation (Rowe and Frewer 2005). A recurrent challenge in the latter dialogues where information flow was more often two-way was providing fair opportunities for different participants to contribute. There were, for instance, issues of vocabulary and language (in Mekong case), confidence and skills, and even just time to think, which quality facilitation and sensible program design can help address but never completely eliminate. What issues are covered, and how well informed and reasoned debates are in a dialogue, is treated here as content. Most reflections on dialogues have focused on process issues and not considered so closely content issues; we suggest that the quality of information provided to participants in all stages is also very important factor affecting effectiveness. This requires preparation by conveners. For controversial topics with contested knowledge claims, commissioning briefing papers or presentations from alternative ‘camps’ may help tease out the strongest arguments and key differences in view from the start. For less controversial issues participants appreciate having access to experts to clarify basic information and understanding about relationships. Managing the flow of technical information through a dialogue process can help lift the quality and substance of debates, by allowing focus to move from points of shared understanding and agreement to more difficult issues related to differences in assumptions, interests and values. As noted earlier attributing particular policy or decision outcomes directly to a dialogue is often impossible given the myriad of social processes at work around difficult water resources development and management issues. On the other hand more immediate outcomes can be secured and identified in follow-up activities of conveners or organizers, and sometimes also, of participants. One of the challenges for conveners and supporters of multi-stakeholder dialogues is to set realistic expectations with respect to outcomes. On the one hand there is a temptation to over-promise so as to gain stronger contributions and enthusiasm for participation; on the other hand this can create false hopes and lead to post-event disappointment. Leadership is regularly identified as an important ingredient in successful dialogues. At the same time this creates tension for deliberative objectives if leadership results in domination or too strong an effort to
227
build consensus so that key issues remain off the agenda and differences unresolved. Outcomes secured this way may be insecure. How tensions between leadership, facilitation and meaningful participation are resolved is key. Individuals often played an important role in securing interest in dialogue event, keeping a conversation moving forward constructively, and in securing decisions and next steps through proper follow-up. In the IJsseldelta case Provincial Deputy Rietkerk was able to keep things together and push the process forward according to Hans Brouwer from the Rijkswaterstaat. In the WA case the Premier of the State of Western Australia, Dr Geoff Gallop, played a key role in taking personal responsibility by establishing himself as Water Minister then linking the dialogue to an on-going process of water reform. In the Mekong case, John Dore, then with IUCN Asia’s Water and Wetlands Programme and Chair of the M-POWER network, used his social capital and networks to secure participation of a diverse group of stakeholders that otherwise may never have met. In contrast the Guadiana case the dialogue process was part of an institutionalized response to an Environmental Impact Study, and no single individual played a major role in ensuring the process was ‘successful’. In IJsseldelta the most important breakthrough in the stakeholder dialogues was brought on by the way in which citizens and policymakers became committed to the project. The moderator of the process Jos Pierey reflected: “I have learned that people can be really motivated by letting them actively participate in the development of images or visions (e.g. the planning scenarios) of how the end result should look like”. During the process the citizens expressed on many occasions their frustration about not being taken seriously in the past by the national or provincial government (e.g. in case of the Hanzelijn) and local government which were called “fake consultation rounds” by some citizens. This skepticism and lack of trust by citizens was being confronted by the moderator and it took a lot of efforts to win the hearts and minds of these citizens. A sense of inter-dependency can be a powerful motivation for collaboration among stakeholders. In the IJsseldelta case a participant noted that “we need each other to achieve our goals”. Informal actor networks were visibly important in some dialogues but less so in others. Networks can connect actors in different ministries, countries and between government, private and not-for-profit organizations. Networks were important in all phases of dialogues including preparation and for making timely response within the often tight frame around key events as well as in follow-up to secure gains made from the dialogue in all but the Guadiana case which was a much more pre-determined and formally institutionalized process. Here the main networks related to agricultural or environmental interests were important in just specific periods where inputs could be put inserted. In the Western Australian case, the appointment of a Director State Water Strategy who had strong skills in developing both formal and informal networks was influential in the early stages of implementation of the State Water Strategy. The quality of participation is a function of many factors, including venues, session formats, how agendas are set, time and quality of briefing materials, and facilitation. It is still common practice by governments to sell predefined plans and call it participation or consultation (sometimes called a ‘Decide and Defend’ approach. Facilitators and conveners have crucial roles in determining the meaningfulness of participation and depth of deliberation.
228
The line between facilitating engagements, convening negotiations and advocacy of a particular interest is fine and sensed by others. Facilitators of learning exercises need to be ethical, honest and respectful of views of others and encourage similar values among participants. Helping stakeholders figure out for themselves what they need to know more about is a key task for facilitators. As in other structured conversations facilitators often must work hard to encourage constructive debate, understanding of others and avoid domination by individuals or small groups (Wollenberg et al. 2000, Schaap and Nandi 2005). The capacity, influence and power of stakeholders effects the way they engage. Open, interactive, planning with a lot of stakeholders requires a certain attitude and competencies from the stakeholders involved. These competences include: the ability to give and take, to wheel and deal, to go beyond its own stake or out-of-the-box thinking, to decide upon outlines without knowing all details, to make compromises, to trust each other, and so on. But there are limits. An analyst from Portugal noted that time available for participating and discussing may be even scarcer than water (Amparo Sereno). In the IJsseldelta conveners also felt that deadlines were important for increasing the speed of the process and to move forward. The exercise could not be sustained for too long or citizen engagement would wane. The dilemma is that complex water problems may take a lot of time for different parties to work through. Who bears the costs of participation is thus a major design issue (Huitema et al. 2009) that depends on purpose and other incentives available – should people’s time be compensated? This study had several important limitations. Only four cases were examined. The cases were compiled post-hoc and although in each case the authors were somehow either involved in the dialogue process and/or were able to carry out interviews with those who had been, the collection of data for different projects limited the depth of analysis possible. For simplicity we selected as units of analysis one or a tight cluster of closely related events as a focus of our analysis of dialogues. In practice all of these ‘cases’ were part of a much larger and less coherent collection of activities, meetings and networking that might constitute a ‘dialogue process’. A more historical, long-term, analysis of individual cases was beyond the scope of this analysis but undoubtedly would reveal further insights about the building of trust and dynamics of relations, and changing understanding of actors involved. Another important limitation was that effectiveness was not systematically assessed. Together with limited set of cases this implies we cannot draw strong conclusions about the design of dialogues without more work. This study shows it is possible to draw insights about the effectiveness of dialogues by using relatively simple questions to compare focal events across case studies. Effectiveness is clearly dependent upon not just the quality of participation and facilitation as is widely recognized, but also on the preparation and follow-up actions by conveners and participants around main events. There also appears to be important contextual factors that modify effectiveness of common dialogue strategies which deserve further systematic exploration through comparative analysis. Other scholars have pointed out the importance, for example, of culture in water management (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2008). In this study the Guadiana dialogues were constrained by cultural norms in which public participation was not felt to be meaningful. In the Mekong case the constraint was a culture of government in which key international organization and national governments were used to deliberating with each other and international consultants but not with a wider group of local stakeholders. In IJsseldelta residence were initially mistrustful as central government agencies had not listened to them in the past, but when given a genuine opportunity to
229
contribute they were fully committed. More research about contextual factors and how they influence mobilization of citizens and the effectiveness of different dialogue formats and tactics is needed.
10.8
CONCLUSION
Engagement in water governance issues takes place at different levels and distances from formal decisions and negotiations over plans, strategies and allocation of benefits and risks. In water resources management and development the luxury of consensus is rare, but willingness to cooperate and desire for integration is growing. Multi-stakeholder dialogues are a promising compliment to more conventional top-down ways of exploring water management and resource development options, establishing rights and responsibilities, and working towards agreements on plans, strategies and allocations. Consistently making dialogues more effective remains an outstanding challenge. Critical and reflective comparative research on experiences with water dialogues could help further improve water governance practices. Acknowledgements Louis Lebel thanks John Dore, for sharing his experiences and expertise with multi-stakeholder platforms, and the International Fund for Science for support for an earlier workshop on dialogues that inspired the analysis in this paper. Patrick Huntjens thanks the following persons for sharing their experiences: Jos Pierey (the moderator of the planning process from 2004-2006), Arjen Otten (secretary of the IJsseldelta Zuid project), Nico Butterman (Municipality of Kampen), Hans Brouwer (Rijkswaterstaat), Chris Griffioen (Water board Groot Salland), Mr. S. van der Bruggen (Vereniging Streekbelangen Kamperveen).
230
PART V – SYNTHESIS, OUTLOOK AND SPIN-OFFS
231
CHAPTER 11 OVERALL CONCLUSIONS The concluding chapter of this dissertation provides an overview of important insights and experiences, key methodological and conceptual advancements and main conclusions. Each section in this chapter will refer back to specific research objectives and questions being formulated in section 1.5.
11.1
METHODOLOGICAL ADVANCEMENTS
This section provides an overview of the key methodological advancements resulting from this dissertation. By doing so, it addresses three research questions (in section 1.5): 1) How to determine the level of adaptive and integrated water management in dealing with climate-related extreme events in each case-study? 2) How can we determine the output or outcome of a water management regime? And how can we assess and compare complex water management regimes in order to identify general patterns?
DEVELOPMENT OF FIVE ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS An important prerequisite for conducting comparative analyses was the development of analytical frameworks which enabled the collection of data relevant for answering the research questions. A unique feature of the frameworks developed for this PhD research is that they not only allow for comparative analysis, but the scope and detailedness also allow for in-depth case study analyses. By combining indepth case studies with more extensive and formal comparative analysis I intended to use the strengths of one method to compensate for limitations inherent in the other (see also the following section on multi-value QCA). The following five frameworks for comparative analyses have been developed:
An analytical framework for the level of adaptive and integrated water management (Chapter 3);
An analytical framework for the level of policy learning (Chapter 4);
A framework for assessing the scope and diversity of physical interventions in a river basin (Chapter 6);
A framework for determining the outcome of participation processes based on mental mapping and causality models (Chapter 9);
A framework for analyzing the functioning and effectiveness of multi-stakeholder dialogues (Chapter 10);
FORMAL TECHNIQUE FOR COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: MULTI-VALUE QCA The specific objective for using mvQCA in this research is to identify specific configurations of conditions in Adaptive and Integrated Water Management (AIWM) that lead to higher levels of learning in river basin management (being reflected and/or consolidated by adaptation strategies to deal with either floods or 233
droughts). Our method allows different causal models leading to a particular outcome, meaning that we are not looking for a blueprint in water management regimes. More details on the mvQCA method itself and how it has been used in this research can be found in Huntjens et al., (2008). By combining in-depth case studies with more extensive and formal comparative analysis we can to some extent use the strengths of one method to compensate for limitations inherent in the other. This explorative research has taken the research problem, rather than a favorite methodology, to determine the research approach, and both the quantitative and qualitative aspects have been and can be used in a consonant manner (Leon, P. de, 1998). As such it is possible to combine the qualities of the case-oriented approach with the qualities of the variable-oriented approach (Berg-Schlosser, et al., 2008). Not much work is available on comparative analyses of river basins including the full range of a water management regime’s complexity (Myint, 2005; Wolf, 1997). This research is one of the first of its kind in comparing complex water management regimes in a semi-quantitative way, but also by making operational the concepts of AIWM and policy learning. Additionally, the method (mvQCA) for analyzing the relationship between regime characteristics and policy learning has not been applied in this specific way, neither in this specific field of climate change adaptation from a water governance perspective (Huntjens et al., 2008).
GROUP MODEL BUILDING FOR PARTICIPATORY ASSESSMENTS Chapter 9 provided a detailed account of how cognitive mapping and group model building have been used for participative assessments in a European, a Central Asian, and an African river basin. This chapter is specifically focusing on the role of cultural settings on the outcomes of a participative process, by means of a qualitative comparative study of participation processes using group model building (GMB). Participation processes play a crucial role in implementing adaptive and integrated water management in river basins. A range of different participative methods is being applied, however, little is known on their effectiveness in addressing the specific question or policy process at stake and their performance in different socio-economic and cultural settings. We use an analytical framework which covers the goals, the role analysis both of scientists and stakeholders, the process initiation and methods framed by very different cultural, socio-economic and biophysical conditions. Across all three basins, the GMB processes produced a shared understanding among all participants of the major water management issues in the respective river basin and common approaches to address them. The “ownership of the ideas” by the stakeholders, i.e. the topic to be addressed in a GMB process, is important for their willingness to contribute to such a participatory process. Differences, however, exist in so far that cultural and contextual constraints of the basin drive the way the GMB processes have been designed and how their results contribute to policy development. The comparison of three GMB processes in an European, Asian and African river basin highlights that involving stakeholders in the analysis of water management barriers and potentials is both necessary and ambitious. Particularly the resulting models of the three processes show that GMB helps to look systematically at the integration of different knowledge frames, conflicting attitudes and ideas of what is wanted and needed. As we have seen in the analysis section of the paper GMB does not necessarily lead to the implementation of a new water management but it offers important new insights what
234
stakeholders think about “their basins” which is an indispensable starting point to reshape the prevailing water management regime. We assess GMB to be somehow an interface between science, resource management and policy making; it recognizes that scientific evidence is a necessary component of complex water management and decision-making. GMB does not actively contribute to policy decisions itself, however, it is an instrument to analyse water management and policy requirements on the one hand. Policy makers could, for example, contribute to the elaborated models bringing in political barriers or win-win-factors that exist beyond the experience of the scientist-stakeholder teams involved in the GMB in our case. And it provides scientific evidence in terms of the requirements to satisfy them on the other. In so far we evaluate GMB to be more of initial and genuine character in the transformation process to AM but as indispensable in its complex and communication-oriented outcomes across regional and biophysical specifics.
TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH This PhD-research can be labeled as a policy-related transdisciplinary research, which is defined as a combination of interdisciplinarity and a participatory approach, applied within the context of complex policy problems such as the governance of climate change adaptation (definition by author). The governance of adaptation to climate change calls for such a transdisciplinary approach, since climate change adaptation displays the characteristics of so called complex or even wicked policy problems (Conklin, 2005). This implicates that simple disciplinary solutions will not suffice. Different social scientific disciplines provide different analyses and solutions. Other authors even argue that merely integrating knowledge from different disciplines is not sufficient and needs to be combined with a participatory approach (van Buuren and Edelenbos, 2004; von Korff, 2005; Alkan Olsson and Andersson, 2006; Reed, 2008; Pahl-Wostl 2007). In this research it means that stakeholders have been consulted and provided information for this study. Transdisciplinary research emphasizes the knowledge elicitation part of constructivist theory. After all, constructivism requires methods which are able to convey the substantive content of ideas and the interactive processes by which ideas are conveyed and exchanged through discourse (Schmidt, 2010). Based on the results of expert judgement my ‘constructivist’ assumption was confirmed that in a single case study there is wide variety of different knowledge frames, mental models and value opinions as regards a complex policy problem such as climate change adaptation (see examples in next paragraphs, page 240). Besides the knowledge elicitation part, transdisciplinary research holds the potential of an approach to support learning, as a kind of action research. For example, our group model sessions (Chapter 9) can be considered as an intervention which stimulates participants to go beyond their own frame of reference and to reflect upon an issue or relation from a different point of view (see also Termeer, 2004). It is possible to use this intervention when processes are locked-in. Another option for action research is to start the process with reframing (Termeer, 2004). Action research usually starts from a joint assessment among ‘researchers’ and ‘researched’ of how the central problems should be defined (Dick et al., 2009). Particularly the resulting models of the three processes in Chapter 9 show that GMB helps to look systematically at the integration of different knowledge frames, conflicting attitudes and ideas of what is wanted and needed. The analysis section of Chapter 9 shows that GMB does not necessarily lead to the implementation of a new water management but it offers important new insights
235
what stakeholders think about ‘their basins’, which is an indispensable starting point to reshape the prevailing water management regime. The group model building (discussed in chapter 9 and above) is an excellent example of transdisciplinary research and is also considered a useful action research tool. Also the other empirical chapters (6, 7, 8 and 10) in this dissertation are characterized by transdisciplinary research, since the assessments are based on expert judgement, using a broad definition of expert, e.g. including water users (e.g. farmers and fishermen), related interest groups (such as water users or farmers associations), next to government officials and policy makers from the local to the international level, representatives from civil society organizations and industry, and last but not least, consultants and researchers. At the same time, we are aware of the possibility of differential biases, given that some basins are more open societies than others, and what is "truth" or which "truth" should be communicated to whom can be quite different in different cultures. In this dissertation I have tried to reduce biased results by including the perspectives from civil society, (independent) researchers, and other non-governmental parties, next to government officials. Details on data processing and calculation of weighted averages have been published earlier in Huntjens, et al. (2007; 2008). A prerequisite for reducing biased results is then to have an equal and fair representation of stakeholders involved. This is based on the basic ‘constructivist’ assumption that there is variety of different knowledge frames and mental models within one society as regards a complex policy problem such as climate change adaptation. A prerequisite is then to have an equal and fair representation of stakeholders involved in this specific setting. In chapter 7, for example, we have targeted to have an equal representation by selecting experts from three main categories: 1) academia, 2) government officials / policy makers, and 3) non-governmental stakeholders (e.g. civil society, water users, and private sector). Table 11.1 shows the number of experts (per category) consulted in each case-study, related to our comparative analysis in chapter 7. A ratio of 30-40-30 shows that there was a fairly equal division over the main categories. Based on the results of expert judgement our ‘constructivist’ assumption was confirmed that in a single case study there is wide variety of different knowledge frames, mental models and value opinions as regards a complex policy problem such as climate change adaptation. For example, policy makers and water managers often have a more technical policy-driven vision than other stakeholders; they are more concerned with climate change because its consideration is a policy requirement. In this sense, climate change consciousness is going along a top-down process. Water manager’s perception focuses mainly on technical issues (e.g. storage capacity, infrastructure, technical efficiency). Water users such as irrigators and water users associations are more concerned on short-term issues, though climate change is a long term process. Scientists dealing with water management issues have a more noticeable political and social view on climate change. Scientist consciousness about climate change is high and they perceive it as a global phenomenon that must necessarily affect social and political views. Environmental groups’ perception focuses mainly on the impacts of climate change on ecosystems, and they are highly concerned about that. In conclusion, these observations highlight the importance of transdisciplinary research and the importance of public participation and stakeholder involvement to produce adequate adaptation strategies.
236
Table 11.1 – Overview of the number of experts (per category) consulted in each case study in chapter 7
11.2
DIFFERENT RESPONSES TO FLOODS AND DROUGHTS
This section addresses the following research question (in section 1.5): Based on formal comparative analyses, what is the relationship between water management regimes and the output of these regimes? In this section ‘output’ is defined as the physical interventions / adaptation measures in a river basin (see chapter 6), while in the next section ‘output’ is defined as the level of policy learning (section 11.3, based on chapter 7). Certainly one interesting insight derived from this PhD-research is the fact that in a basin where one type of extreme is dominant – like droughts in the Alqueva (Portugal) and floods in Rivierenland (Netherlands) - the potential impacts of other extremes are somehow ignored or not perceived with the urgency they might deserve. The empirical research in four case studies in Chapter 6 suggests that drought response/adaptation is slower than responsiveness related to floods. This might be explained by different risk perceptions (Green et al. 2007; Neuvel, 2004; De Hollander and Hanemaaijer 2003; Lijklema 2001) and differences in the availability of solutions. We also suggest that these differences might be explained by the nature of the problem itself, whereas flood management is determined by safety concerns, drought management is determined by water scarcity and related problems in the allocation of water resources. Moreover, we argue that the threat of floods is often perceived as more threatening and acute than the threat of droughts, since the latter is spread out of longer time periods and consequences are often felt indirectly. Moreover, in the Netherlands, the risk of drought problems and water scarcity caused by climate change is not acknowledged by all stakeholders, as indicated by the experts in this research (see also Neuvel, 2004). Based on our comparative analysis of four European River Basins (Chapter 6) we have found that the responsiveness of all case studies to deal with extreme drought events is poor (based on the current status of physical interventions in the river basin), and we have not found conclusive evidence that a higher level of AIWM creates a better response to drought and low flow problems. However, it is 237
important to acknowledge that a regime with a higher level of AIWM may not have achieved its projected outcomes yet, since there normally is time-lag between policy development and factual implementation. Combining the poor response to drought and low flows problems with the enormous social, economic and environmental effects in recent years it is justified to support Milligan’s statement that droughts and heat waves are the developed world’s hidden disaster (Milligan 2004), and in this case the hidden disaster of Europe, and it is expected that this will become even worse due to climate change (European Environment Agency, 2007; IARU, 2009; IPCC, 2007). For example, agricultural production in the Netherlands is reduced by 5 to 35 % because of water shortages (National Safety Reports, Ministry of Domestic Affairs, Netherlands, 2006). This means an average economical damage of 180 million Euros/year, and even 1800 million Euros/year in extreme years (RIZA, Droogtestudie, 2005, updated 2008). Damage to the Dutch water transport sector goes up to 800 million Euros in extreme years (RIZA, Droogtestudie, 2005, updated 2008). Furthemore, we argue that a regime element such as joint/participative information production is crucial for identifying hidden disasters and for reaching a critical awareness threshold for initiating a policy window. From this perspective it is expected that a regime with a higher level of AIWM is more responsive to the threat of new or hidden disasters than a less adaptive regime. This seems to be confirmed by case study in the Netherlands (e.g. Rivierenland), since they have been confronted with serious droughts only recently, but the first steps are being taken as regards developing a nation-wide adaptation strategy for this specific problem, expected to be published in 2012 (Pers. Comm. Luit-Jan Dijkhuis, DirectorateGeneral Water, Netherlands). However, the current political climate might be a limiting factor for consolidating a comprehensive strategy. Comparing the responsiveness of the management regimes to drought and low flow problems and their responsiveness to flood problems suggests that the former is considerably lower than the latter. Drawing on the discussion in the preceding two sections, part of the explanation may be that flood problems are more directly perceived and experienced by not only experts and policy makers, but also by the wider public, creating a ´policy window´ through public pressure (which may induce responses) and concern (which may help politicians to legitimize responses). This research shows that in a basin where one type of extreme is dominant – like droughts in the Alqueva (Portugal) and floods in Rivierenland (Netherlands) the potential impacts of other extremes are somehow ignored or not perceived with the urgency they might deserve. Within this context, it is important to acknowledge the importance of a critical awareness threshold, prior to the opening of a policy window. We argue that such a critical awareness threshold is directly related to joint/participative information production, as a necessary prerequisite for reaching a critical awareness threshold concerning the impacts of climate change and the need to take anticipatory action. However, such a policy window will only appear if the other conditions, as suggested by Kingdon (1995), have been met. In contrast to the poor responses to drought and low flow problems, a higher level of AIWM seems to result in more adequate responses to flood problems, at least in terms of flood protection or mitigation measures. The response of more adaptive and integrated regimes is characterized by a higher diversity in the type of measures being implemented or planned, including more attention for non-traditional measures, such as green by-passes and natural retention of flood water. The higher diversity in response measures indicates that horizons of possibility are being expanded, which corresponds to the concept of
238
triple loop learning developed by Robert Hargrove (2002:118). Case-studies showing a lower level of AIWM, for example the Lower Guadiana in Portugal, merely improve performance (e.g. increase reservoir volumes) without changing guiding assumptions or without taking entirely alternative actions into account. This involves doing things better without necessarily examining or challenging underlying beliefs and assumptions (Kahane 2004). These types of actions correspond to single loop learning (Hargrove 2002). In other words, our research indicates that case-studies showing a higher level of AIWM seem to have higher levels of learning in terms of its physical interventions. However, this observation needs to be further investigated by scrutinizing the policy responses of the management regimes in terms of different levels of policy learning (Grin & Loeber 2007). Nevertheless, this first observation is in line with our working hypothesis that AIWM requires many instances of social learning to implement and sustain innovative approaches (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007). Additionally, our research shows that uncertainty related to climate change is often considered as an excuse for not taking action. An exception is case-study Rivierenland where the Room for Rivers-policy is taking into account climate change scenarios, besides addressing other types of uncertainty, such as political and technological uncertainties (Huntjens et al. 2007, update 2009). Hence, we argue that management regimes having the intention to constructively deal with uncertainty are doing this by the active involvement of a diverse group of stakeholders in policymaking, and by means of joint/participative information production. Moreover, we have also seen that some uncertainties might be overcome by conducting policy experiments, such as the management experiment near Avelingen (in the Netherlands) for testing alternative designs for the processes of developing integrated flood management plans (Huntjens et al. 2007, update 2009). Besides the above explanations for the different responses to flood and drought problems I have argued that looking at physical interventions provides an incomplete picture of the capabilities or outputs of a water management regime. Hence, drawing conclusions merely based on the physical response would be premature, and we argue that a management regime with a higher level of AIWM might be more productive in terms of management interventions than in terms of physical interventions. In other words, our research provides valuable insights as regards the research design for analyzing complex multi-level governance systems. One of the limitations of the research design in Chapter 6 is the narrow definition of the outputs of a management regime, being defined as physical interventions in the river basin. Apart from the physical intervention in the water system a regime’s performance could and should also be measured by its ‘non-physical’ measures, such as awareness campaigns, measures for improving information management and exchange, cooperation structures, insurance mechanisms, etcetera. In principle, these are measures which target at all the elements of a water management regime, and even could target at (changing) the formal institutional setting (e.g. European Directives and national or regional water laws). This means that there could be many nonlinear feedback loops within the regime itself, and the regime is in that sense creating its own enabling environment. Especially in regimes with a higher level of AIWM the formal institutional setting is being altered by the demand for governance as regards (new developments in) water related problems, such as the impacts of climate change. Examples include the Dutch National Water Agreement (Bestuursakkoord Water 2002), leading towards the start of implementing the Room for Rivers-policy (PKB Ruimte voor de Rivier 2006), and the Hungarian National Drought Strategy (2004). Based on the limitations identified in Chapter 6 the following chapter 7 has been focusing on climate change adaptation strategies, being defined as an output of the management regime. These strategies have been assessed by looking at physical AND management interventions. Additionally, the outputs of a 239
management regime have been evaluated in terms of different levels of policy learning (Hall 1988; Bennet 1992; Sanderson 2002; Huitema & Meijerink 2007; Grin & Loeber, 2007). We believe that such a research design, thanks to lessons learned in Chapter 6, is better equipped for analyzing the adaptive capacities of water management regimes. For the key conclusions of chapter 7 see section 11.4.
11.3
DISCOVERY OF SIGNIFICANT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN DIFFERENT REGIME ELEMENTS
Directly related to the research objective of identifying general patterns in adaptive and integrated water management (section 1.5) one of the key findings is the fact that variables from different regime elements show a significant positive correlation (see table 11.3). This suggests a strong interdependence of the elements within a water management regime, and as such this interdependence is a stabilizing factor in current management regimes. For example, joint/participative information production is positively correlated with vertical cooperation (p=0.91), transboundary cooperation (p=0.95), consideration of uncertainties (p=0.95), and broad communication (p=0.90) (Huntjens, et al., 2008). These correlations lead to the conclusion that a lack of consensual knowledge is an important obstacle for cooperation, and vice versa, especially when dealing with uncertainty and change (Huntjens, et al., 2008), which is also being suggested by other researchers (Olsson et al., 2006; Stubbs and Lemon, 2001; Tompkins and Adger, 2004). The observed correlations provide evidence that different regime elements are highly interconnected, especially indicators for the regime elements cooperation structures and information management. For more discussion on these interdependencies see section 11.4 on key factors for policy learning and 11.6 on obstacles for climate change adaptation. Table 11.3 - Overview of significant correlations between the variables in our framework for assessing a water management regime Variable
Is positively correlated with variable:
Joint/participative information production Levels of, and provisions for, stakeholder participation Vertical cooperation
Vertical cooperation (p=0.91), transboundary cooperation (p=0.95), consideration of uncertainties (p=0.95), and broad communication (p=0.90) Consideration of possible measures (p=0.96), and risk perception (p=0.95)
Consideration of uncertainties
Monitoring and evaluation Risk perception Vertical conflict resolution Utilization of information
Bottom-up governance (p=0.97) joint/participative information production (p=0.91) and consideration of uncertainties (p=0.90) Time horizon in policy development (0.90), consideration of possible measures (0.90), broad communication (p=0.90), utilization of information (p=0.94), joint/participative information production (p=0.95), vertical cooperation (p=0.90) Elicitation of mental models/ critical self-reflection about assumptions (p=0.95) Consideration of possible measures (p=0.95) Level of compliance to (inter)national regulation (p=0.91) Time horizon in policy development (p=0.96) and consideration of possible measures (p=0.91)
240
11.4
KEY FACTORS FOR POLICY LEARNING & DISCLOSURE OF THE SOCIOCOGNITIVE DIMENSION IN WATER MANAGEMENT
The key research question (from section 1.5) being addressed in Chapter 7 is whether a higher level of adaptive and integrated water management (AIWM) is showing a different response in coping with floods and droughts than management regimes with a lower level of AIWM. This was done by looking at different levels of policy learning (Hall, 1988; Bennet, 1992; Sanderson 2002; Argyris, 1999; Hargrove, 2002), being reflected and/or consolidated in the adaptation strategies to deal with either floods or droughts. The policy learning is defined as a 'deliberate attempt to adjust the goals or techniques of policy in the light of the consequences of past policy and new information so as to better attain the ultimate objects of governance' (Hall, 1988: 6). By analysing the relationship (by using mvQCA) between the level of AIWM and the levels of policy learning (being reflected in their adaptation strategies) we can conclude that a relatively high score on cooperation structures and information management are causal conditions leading to at least double loop learning in Rivierenland (Netherlands), Ohre Basin (Czech Republic), and Upper Vaal (South Africa). In the case-studies were these conditions are less developed – e.g. in the Alentejo Region (Portugal), AmuDarya (Uzbekistan) and countries of the Kagera Basin - the strategies are characterized by single loop learning (ad-hoc problem solving). Better integrated cooperation structures are characterized by the inclusion of non-governmental stakeholders, governments from different sectors (supporting horizontal integration) and government from different hierarchical levels (supporting vertical integration). Advanced information management is characterized by joint/participative information production, a commitment to dealing with uncertainties, broad communication between stakeholders, open and shared information sources, and flexibility and openness for experimentation. As such, advanced information management may be considered the lubricating oil within cooperation structures, and is considered a crucial prerequisite for facilitating learning processes, building trust and supporting cooperation. An important conclusion based on our formal comparative analyses is that better integrated cooperation structures and advanced information management are the key factors leading towards higher levels of policy learning in river basin management. Higher levels of policy learning are being reflected and/or consolidated in more advanced adaptation strategies for dealing with floods or droughts. These advanced adaptation strategies are characterized by: 1) a robust and flexible process; 2) polycentric, broad and horizontal stakeholder participation; 3) climate change scenario analyses; 4) risk assessments; 5) high diversity in management and physical interventions; and 6) dealing with structural constraints of the management system itself. Moreover, above conclusions support our initial assumption that effective AIWM is able to facilitate a change in strategy, as being an adaptation to climate change. As such, there is a reciprocal relationship between AIWM and the development of adaptation strategies. Moreover, our assumption is confirmed that this relationship is reciprocal only in a situation of bottom-up governance, including real participation of non-governmental stakeholders, but also from different government sectors, lower levels of government, and downstream stakeholders. This bottom-up process is emerging from partnerships and networks (Geels et al., 2004). 241
An important hypothesis in the concept of social learning is that information management and social (cooperation) structures are interlinked (Pahl-Wostl & Sendzimir, 2005), which corresponds to the sociocognitive theory of information systems (Hemmingway, 1998). Hemmingway pays attention to the impacts of presented information on learning and action, and the centrality of the selection and organization of information to the nature of organizational forms. Our research confirms that information management and social (cooperation) structures are interlinked in the management systems under consideration. This interdependency can be described as the sociocognitive dimension of water management regimes. I have defined the socio-cognitive dimension as the integrated cognitive and social properties of complex governance systems and its supporting processes, (e.g. social learning, stakeholder participation and content related collaboration). The socio-cognitive dimension is an essential emerging property of a water governance system, depending on a specific set of structural conditions. In particular, better integrated cooperation structures and advanced information management are structural conditions leading towards higher levels of policy learning. This sociocognitive dimension is inherent to the adaptive capacity of water governance systems, and in systems where this dimension is absent or less developed there is lacking capacity for developing advanced adaptation strategies. The importance of the socio-cognitive dimension is directly related to the fact that climate change adaptation is a so-called ‘wicked’ problem, characterized by complexity, conflicting interests and an unpredictable future. Hence, in order to achieve institutional adaptation, certain elements need to be focused on, including adequate access and distribution of information, collaboration in terms of public participation and sectoral integration, flexibility and openness for experimentation. In contrast to conventional conflict-oriented theories this research provides evidence that learning is an important source (if not the key source) of policy change (Huntjens, et al., 2008). Within conflict-oriented policy theory, the nature of the mechanism or agent of policy change and the role of knowledge in that process remains unclear (Castles, 1990). As e.g. Folke et al. (2005) have pointed out, social learning is needed to build up experience for coping with uncertainty and change. They emphasize that “knowledge generation in itself is not sufficient for building adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems to meet the challenge of navigating nature’s dynamics” and conclude that “learning how to sustain social-ecological systems in a world of continuous change needs an institutional and social context within which to develop and act”. Knowledge and the ability to act upon new insights are continuously enacted in social processes (Folke, et al., 2005; Geels, et al., 2004). Our formal comparative analysis suggests that the social network of stakeholders is an invaluable asset for dealing with change.
11.5
EXPLAINING UNDERLYING MECHANISMS OF INTERDEPENDENCY AND THE SOCIO-COGNITIVE DIMENSION
It is important to highlight the importance of above research findings, especially since information management and cooperation structures are often addressed as two different issues. Moreover, information management issues, such as in the water management sector and other sectors, are often thought to be solved by technology. However, the empirical evidence presented in this dissertation strongly suggests otherwise, respectively that information management and cooperation structures are closely interdependent (section 11.3), and that solutions for issues in information management are (also) 242
to be found in its interdependency with cooperation structures. In the previous section (and in chapter 7) this interdependency has been coined as the socio-cognitive dimension of a complex governance system. The question arises of how this socio-cognitive dimension is functioning and what underlying mechanisms are able to explain, in particular, the interdependency between information management and cooperation structures. A better understanding of the interdependency of different regime elements and the socio-cognitive dimension is an important step towards improving adaptive approaches to water management and its governance. Chapter 9 shows that via beneficial collaboration, both scientists and relevant stakeholders (e.g. farmers, professionals in water management, representatives of the administration, academics and NGO representatives) come closer to ‘the nature of the problems’ in a basin (Hart 1986, Hodgson 1992, von Korff 2005, Pahl-Wostl 2007). Therefore, participation processes and local knowledge play a crucial role for implementing adaptive management (AM) in river basins (Alkan Olsson and Andersson 2006; Reed, 2008). According to Reed (2008), participation should be underpinned by equity, trust and learning to be effective and impacting. Thus also frames stakeholder processes in water management, which in general aim at creating ownership and awareness of the different views and perceptions that exist on a problem in a basin (Pahl-Wostl 2007). Accordingly, they also aim at initiating social learning while engaging local and regional stakeholders to bridge the science-policy gap and to improve the practical relevance of research (cf. experiences by Alkan Olsson and Andersson 2006; learning alliances as reported in Vries, 2006; van Buuren and Edelenbos 2004; review by Reed, 2008). Hence, broad stakeholder participation is a prerequisite for setting AM into operation. However, on many occasions, people are still reluctant to share the information and knowledge that they believe gives them power. That explains why advanced information management is not possible without integrated cooperation structures which facilitate joint knowledge production, information exchange, adequate access and distribution of information. 66
An important notion in this respect is that someone who manages knowledge or information is de facto managing knowledge carriers (e.g. individual experts or farmers) or information owners (e.g. organisations). In other words, information management is predominantly occupied with, and requires knowledge on, the management of social processes and cooperation structures. Second, all cooperation processes in water management are knowledge-intensive collaborations and/or dialogues. In many instances, one person or organization is managing information and enacting in social processes at the same time. Termeer (2004) argues that socio-cognitive configurations are characterized by intensive interactions between certain people of which most have a shared definition of reality or shared ontology. In some of my case studies there was at least a shared sense of urgency on a complex, and thus knowledge intensive, policy problem (i.e. climate change) which triggered beneficial collaboration (see also von Korff, 2005; Pahl-Wostl, 2007). The above mechanisms explain the interdependency of information management and cooperation structures, stipulating the functioning of the socio-cognitive
66
'Knowledge' is often used as a synonym for 'information'. However, I define knowledge as ‘what we know’ and information as ‘what we communicate’ and both terms are therefore not necessarily the same (see also Wilson, 2002).
243
dimension as the symbiosis of information management and cooperation at multiple levels and between these levels (including individual, organizational and system level). As a matter of fact, my research shows that in a water management regime with a high level of policy learning advanced information management is not possible without (horizontal and vertical) integrated cooperation structures and vice versa. The above understanding may not come as a surprise, but the empirical support provided in my research is worthy of being highlighted in an era where, in a number of studies, information management and cooperation structures are being addressed separately and where information management issues are thought to be solved by technology only.
11.6
INFLUENCE OF CONTEXT ON CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
This section on the influence of context directly refers to our question on what factors determine the adaptive capacity of a water management regime (section 1.5). In particular chapter 7, 9 and 10 show that context factors have a strong influence on participation and learning processes in water resources management. Hence, it is important to embed adaptation decisions in wider context, since they are not isolated from other decisions, but occur in the context of demographic, cultural and economic change as well as transformations in information technologies, global governance, social conventions and the globalizing flows of capital and (to a lesser extent) labour (see O’Brien and Leichenko, 2000). In this dissertation context factors have been taken into account, for example, in Chapter 9 as regards the influence of socio-economic and political conditions on processes of group model building. As criteria to compare the socio-political and economic context of the case studies we have assessed the status of the civil society, the political system and respective hierarchies in water management, sectoral integration, allocation of financial resources, water supply, information access of local stakeholders, etcetera. One of the conclusions of this chapter is that differences in cultural and political contexts drive the way in which the GMB processes have been designed and how their results contribute to policy development. Also in Chapter 10 the influence of contextual factors on multi-stakeholder dialogues has been addressed explicitly. In this study the Guadiana dialogues were constrained by cultural norms in which public participation was not felt to be meaningful. In the Mekong case the constraint was a culture of government in which key international organization and national governments were used to deliberating with each other and international consultants but not with a wider group of local stakeholders. In IJsseldelta residents were initially mistrustful as central government agencies had not listened to them in the past, but when given a genuine opportunity to contribute they were fully committed. One of the key observations is that the socio-economic and political contexts for climate change adaptation vary greatly among places and countries, for example, one of the conclusions in Chapter 7 is that the ability to adapt in individual countries may depend on the availability of financial and human resources, technologies, levels of education, available information, suitable planning and the overall infrastructure (see chapter 7). Along with formal institutional arrangements these contextual factors contribute to differences in how risks are allocated and the possibilities for flood and drought politics. Furthermore, it can be difficult to separate climate change adaptation decisions or actions from actions triggered by other social or economic events (Adger et al., 2005). Some adaptations can be clearly identified as being triggered by climate change and those adaptations are often purposeful and directed, as we have seen in the Dutch ‘Room for Rivers’- policy and the nation-wide implementation of that 244
programme. Adaptations can also arise as a result of other non-climate-related social or economic changes: a householder deciding to move from an area at increasing risk of flooding to an area at lower risk, for example, may not be primarily motivated by climate change, but rather by other demographic or economic factors. Clearly, attributing adaptations to climate change is not a simple process. Moreover, it is also possible that some adaptation decisions can be very difficult to implement due to other, more pressing issues at that time. A clear example of this has been observed in the Upper Tisza, were high unemployment rates trigger a migration from rural areas to urban areas, while these urban areas are mostly located in areas which are more vulnerable to floods. An adaptation measure, such as moving settlements out of these flood prone areas, is therefore counteracted by socio-economic factors. Effective implementation of this adaptation measure is therefore very limited. In conclusion, adaptation to climate change is often context specific, can take many forms and involves a range of public and private actors, from government-level down to organizations and individuals. As being concluded in Chapter 7 and 8, adaptation strategies need to be tailor-made to local circumstances, related to the specific geographic and water-related circumstances, the socio-economic circumstances, the political system and the specific institutional arrangements.
11.7
OBSTACLES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
This section addresses the research question (in section 1.5): what are the obstacles and opportunities for climate change adaptation? From the empirical analyses in this dissertation it became clear that while the different case studies have their own unique situations, there are some common obstacles and opportunities for climate change adaptation in water management. ‘Obstacles’ are defined as key features which hinder the process and content of climate change adaptation; ‘opportunities’ as key features that enhance the process and content of adaptation. Both obstacles and opportunities can be translated into policy recommendations for climate change adaptation. This section intends to highlight important obstacles and opportunities, by extracting common features in the case studies following the same logic as my analytical framework for AIWM (Chapter 3). It does so by extracting key insights derived from interviews and questionnaire results (as represented in chapter 6 and 7 specifically), in accordance with the regime elements in the analytical framework. For each obstacle or opportunity I will make reference to the regime element in question.
OBSTACLES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION I would like to start this section on obstacles for climate change adaptation by means of a general overview, which mainly refers to the regime elements ‘capacity building and awareness raising’, ‘cooperation structures’ and ‘information management’ (see chapter 7 in particular). Especially in river basins like the Amudarya, Orange, Guadiana and Nile a higher frequency and intensity of droughts, in combination with higher temperatures, pose serious threats to food security. Compared to the Amudarya, Guadiana and Nile the management system in the Orange Basin is already more advanced in this respect, since it shows a higher level of AIWM and more advanced adaptation strategies. However, capacity in the region is rapidly becoming a serious limiting factor (Huntjens, et al., 2008). This is particularly evident in South Africa where the challenge of implementing water resources management plans is so large, but there has been a serious loss of skills. Capacity building programs are on the agenda of the South African 245
government Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) and the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF), but it has not been enough so far for compensating the continuing loss of skills. Hence, it is important to recognize that the ability to adapt in the individual countries may depend on the availability of financial and human resources, technologies, level of education, available information, suitable planning and the overall infrastructure. It holds in general that the economically and socially more developed countries have disproportionately greater potential for adaptation compared to developing countries. For example in the Nile and Amudarya there is a great willingness to be adaptive, but there are a number of structural constraints mentioned by the majority of experts in this case study:
Problems in organizational setup related to horizontal and vertical integration; Lack of human capital (people skilled and educated for certain tasks); Low level of awareness among decision makers on climate change issues: how will climate change, what the impacts will be, which adaptation is needed? Lack of adequate financial resources for adaptation; Lack of information and of exchange among the relevant actors Spatial and temporal uncertainties associated with climate change projections
The central thread being recognized in these structural constraints is a combination of poor cooperation structures and poor information management. In other words, unless these regions are able to make substantial investments and improvements in their cooperation structures and information management, hereby strengthening their adaptive capacity, they will not be able to cope with the serious threats posed by climate change.
POOR COOPERATION AND COMMUNICATION DUE TO POWER AND INTERESTS This obstacle refers to the regime element cooperation structures (in Chapter 3). Development and implementation of climate change adaptation strategies often remains a problem due to, at times, poor cooperation between sectoral governments, poor cooperation across administrative boundaries, and also the protection of vested interests not only by states but also by important individuals in government and even in the science fraternity. This is often accompanied by insufficient communication between actors and reluctance of actors to change. Power and interests cannot easily be eliminated from deliberations or cooperation in either policy or political spheres (Shapiro, 1999), although being aware of these may help governments to set up institutional arrangements and incentives in deliberative and cooperative situations to minimize the potential effects of domination (Shapiro, 2003: Ch. 2). A command and control mentality on the part of many government officials also prevents the type of adaptive management, including broad and horizontal stakeholder participation, which is necessary for dealing with climate change adaptation. For example, in Portugal and Uzbekistan the added value of nongovernmental stakeholder participation is in general not acknowledged by government officials. This is reflected, amongst others, by the fact that governmental authorities in these countries, in general, do not subsidize environmental NGOs. In combination with a lack of public awareness as regards environmental problems, and thus limited income from member subscriptions, these environmental NGO’s have a lack of financial and human capital. As a direct consequence, they are not able to have a serious influence on decision-making or policymaking, simply because they are not able to collect and present information, initiate and conduct their own independent research, run public awareness campaigns, etcetera. 246
It is especially on the variable ‘cross-sectoral cooperation’ that the dimension of power has mentioned several times (see chapter 6 and 7). According to Adger et al. (2005b) power relations determine the nature of interaction. For example, in Portugal, the cooperation between administrative levels depends on whether different administration levels belong to the same political parties or not. This suggests that decisions are more easily negotiated when different administration levels belong to the same political party. This observation is supported by Arce and Long (1992) who argue that important elements of power in determining the interactions between actors across scales are how decisions are negotiated, how tradeoffs are made to give room for manoeuvre, and how other actors are enrolled on a cause (Arce and Long 1992). Moreover, knowledge is a key resource in the exercises of power (Adger et al. (2005b): “it is used by both dominant parties and by those resisting action. Actors across social and temporal scales use these same mechanisms in the exercise of power.” In general, parties with higher political influence achieve their interest, and there is continuous power struggle of who is controlling the money, as being observed in the majority of the case studies. Although it often exists on paper, the level of cross-sectoral cooperation in a number of case-studies is relatively low, amongst others because adequate coordination of different government sectors is lacking. Even in Rivierenland, were public-public cooperation is quite common, respondents indicate that this is definitely not an easy task. Especially in times of crises, for example during droughts in Portugal, conflicts arise between water management and agriculture.
PROBLEMS OF INSTITUT IONAL SPATIAL MISFIT AND VERTICAL INTERPLAY This obstacle refers to the regime element cooperation structures (in Chapter 3). All case-studies are, more or less, confronted with problems of institutional fit and interplay. These two 67 problems have been identified by the IDGEC-project as important factors which strongly shape the performance of institutions that govern human/environment relations (Young, 1999: 45). The basic idea of the problem of interplay is that “the effectiveness of specific institutions often depends not only on their own features but also on their interactions with other institutions” (Young, 1999: 49). The basic idea of the problem of institutional fit is that the effectiveness of an institution is diminished where its characteristics do not match the characteristics of the biophysical systems it addresses (Young 1999: 45). According to the EU Water Framework Directive the natural area for water management is the river basin area. Since it cuts across administrative boundaries, water management requires close cooperation between all administrations and institutions involved. This is not only a challenge for transboundary and international rivers, but also on a sub basin level, since the administrative boundaries in all case-studies do not match with the hydrological boundaries determined by the Directive. The Directive makes this cooperation between all involved administrations and institutions mandatory within and between the Member States and encourages it with countries outside the EU, for example the Ukraine.68. Together
67
68
Institutional Dimensions of Global Environment Change (IDGEC), a large scale international science project See WFD Article 3.3 and 3.5 for details on the extent of international cooperation.
247
with the integration of planning69, this component is meant to ensure true horizontal and vertical integration. However, this research shows that vertical and horizontal cooperation is varying in substantial degrees between the different European case studies. Rivierenland is showing the highest levels, while Upper Tisza and the Alentejo region are showing the lowest levels. Since Hungary has started transposition of EU-legislation much later than the Netherlands, this difference could be explained by a time lag in implementation of the Directive. However, since the Ukraine is showing higher levels of vertical and horizontal cooperation, this explanation is definitely not conclusive, and should be addressed in future research. The WFD makes cooperation between all involved administrations and institutions mandatory within and between the Member States and encourages it with countries outside the EU, for example the Ukraine. Together with the integration of planning, this WFD component is meant to ensure true horizontal and vertical integration. However, this research shows that vertical and horizontal cooperation is varying in substantial degrees between the different case-studies, meaning that there is still a long way to go in solving problems of institutional interplay in European River Basins. In general, in the case-studies of this dissertation the problem of institutional fit refers to the ability of institutions of water management at regional and local levels to meet the hydrological principles for river basin management (for example requested by the EU Water Framework Directive). Water resource problems present a particular challenge since the spatial context of natural resources cannot, in most cases, be altered. The central focus of problem-solving lies, therefore, on changes to institutional arrangements. This is reflected in Elinor Ostrom’s work (1990) on the management of common pool resources, where boundary problems between biophysical and human systems play an important role.
LACK OF CERTAINTY This obstacle refers to the regime element information management (in Chapter 3). Possibly the greatest obstacle to adaptation is the spatial and temporal uncertainty associated with climate change projections. When adaptation to flood situations is necessary it is relatively easy to adapt the tools for disaster reduction management to also deal with future climate situations. There is however one serious issue: uncertainty. When 'normal' floods can be treated as a statistical phenomenon, under climate change conditions the past is no longer the predictor for the future. This increased uncertainty is a characteristic of the whole area of climate change research and policy, and it often weakens the support given by policy makers and governments and reduces the enthusiasm for the subject among managers. It is often used as an excuse for inaction. Part of the problem here revolves around communication between scientists and the rest of society, where the message may create confusion.
69
Whilst the WFD mainly describes water quality aspects for surface waters, it is a mandatory prerequisite to integrate water quantity planning aspects (mainly flood risk and drought management). Groundwater quantity aspects are already part of the WFD (Source: EC, 2007)
248
LACK OF INFORMATION AND OF EXCHANGE AMONG THE RELEVANT ACTORS This obstacle refers to the regime element information management (in Chapter 3). This PhD research has encountered many examples of poor, and often incomplete, information exchange among relevant actors. Even in situations where relevant information is available it is sometimes simply not shared. For example, in the Kagera or Mekong Basin, where departments responsible for water and/or environmental management need to buy hydrological data from the departments responsible for hydropower. As a result, the necessary information is often not shared, in this case due to financial constraints. Apart from this example, the reasons for poor information exchange might vary, but are often related to insufficient legal arrangements for information sharing, human capacity and financial problems, incompatible databases, insufficient communication between actors and reluctance of actors to change, and, again, a lack of information exchange is often related to power and interests. Eventually, incomplete information can result in adaptation actions that may increase vulnerability rather than reduce it. Some examples of this "mal-adaptation" are sea level rise or flood protection infrastructure that may disturb the natural dynamic nature of coastal and river systems, or cooling or water supply technologies that may increase energy consumption.
INTERDEPENDENCIES BETWEEN REGIME ELEMENTS MIGHT HAMPER CHANGE AND TRANSITION This obstacle refers to the correlations between different regime elements as identified in chapter 6 and 7 specifically. The results in chapter 6 and 7 show that there is a strong interdependence of the elements within a water management regime, and as such this interdependence is a stabilizing factor in current management regimes. One cannot, for example, move easily from top-down to participatory management practices without changing the whole approach to information and risk management and collaboration structures. A similar interdependence has been observed in the institutional design principles (Chapter 8), since many of these principles show an overlap in their institutional workings, being defined by the governance regime in place. For example, when a case study is characterized by a centralized, hierarchical governance system, than the design principles such as collective choice arrangements and conflict resolution mechanisms are characterized by low levels of stakeholder participation. This is often accompanied by insufficient communication between actors and reluctance of actors to change. Also vertical integration is often lacking, which is shown by the fact that sectors are separately analyzed, resulting a fragmented understanding of the policy problem and gaps in information, leading to policy conflicts and emergent chronic problems. In particular, this research provides evidence that a lack of joint/participative knowledge production is an important obstacle for cooperation, and vice versa. The research shows a two-way relationship between information management and collaboration. Overview of major obstacles to climate change adaptation:
Lack of human capital (people skilled and educated for certain tasks); Low levels of awareness among decision makers on climate change issues: how will climate
249
change, what the impacts will be, which adaptation is needed? Lack of adequate financial resources for adaptation; Problems in organizational setup related to horizontal and vertical integration; Problems of institutional spatial misfit and vertical interplay; Lack of information and of exchange among the relevant actors Spatial and temporal uncertainties associated with climate change projections Interdependencies between regime elements might hamper change and transition
OPPORTUNITIES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION Besides obstacles it is ofcourse also possible to extract opportunities for climate change adaptation from the resuls from interviews and questionnaire (as represented in chapter 6 and 7 specifically). Also in this section I will make reference to the regime element in question, in accordance with the regime elements in the analytical framework for AIWM (Chapter 3). In all our case studies the willingness to cooperate and adapt is increasing, also because many extreme weather events are occurring more frequently than before and as a result there is more public attention for climate change and its impacts. Doing nothing is not an option, especially if one realizes that for every euro invested in disaster preparedness, six euro could be saved in reconstruction costs (UNEP, 2004).
TRUST BUILDING Trust building may be considered a cross-cutting variable, since it relates more or less to each regime element in my analytical framework for AIWM (Chapter 3), in particular ‘agency’, ‘cooperation structures’ and ‘information management’. Trust building has been mentioned in this PhD research as an important prerequisite for cooperation (see chapter 8 in particular), and in our case studies we have seen that building trust was an important element in a robust and flexible process (e.g. in the Room for River process in the Netherlands) and in collective choice arrangements (e.g. the water forums in Western Australia). In general, we can state that a certain level of trust is necessary between stakeholders for them to be able to learn from each other, but it is also important that stakeholders have a certain level of trust regarding the process itself. Nevertheless, it is obvious that building trust becomes more challenging when the level of stakeholder participation becomes higher, when more interests are at stake, and when complexity and uncertainty increases. Trust building is therefore a major issue during climate change adaptation, especially since it could make the difference between stakeholders opting for confrontation or cooperation. When comparing the case studies (in Chapter 9) the element of trust building was found, often implicitly, in a variety of ways. For example, in the Netherlands the sharing of the right information at the right time during the process supported trust between stakeholders and trust regarding the process itself. Also transparency, by providing stakeholders with a clearly defined scope of what to expect during the process, was an important way of building trust about the process. In Western Australia the public water forums 250
supported community awareness raising and knowledge transfer. As participants developed their understanding of the issues, complexity and environmental footprint, they became more supportive of Government action. These forums built considerable trust on which to first develop and then implement the State Water Strategy actions. Furthermore, in our case studies we have seen the importance of monitoring and evaluation for increasing accountability, and thus building the trust that those who are responsible are also held accountable. In general, this disseration highlights the importance of transparent and early communication of uncertainties, joint/participative knowledge production, open access to, and shared information sources, transparency about the decision-making process, and sharing of responsibilities as key elements for trust building.
DEALING WITH UNCERTAINTIES This opportunity refers to the regime elements ‘information management’ and ‘policy development and – implementation’ (Chapter 3). As mentioned under obstacles, increased uncertainty often weakens the support given by policy makers and governments and reduces the enthusiasm for the subject among managers. It is often used as an excuse for inaction. However, instead of an obstacle, when finding effective ways of dealing with uncertainties, it might easily become the most remunerative approach for realizing climate change adaptation objectives. In some of our case studies we have seen vulnerability assessments (e.g. in South Africa) and risk assessments (e.g. in the Netherlands and Czech Republic) as important tools for dealing with uncertainties. Dealing with uncertainty means that uncertainty is addressed openly in a transparent and accountable manner. At the same time, transparent and early communication of uncertainties is important for building trust (see previsous section). For example, in our case studies in the Netherlands and Western Australia an important step was to acknowledge the major uncertainties related to climate change, and to describe the uncertainty in quantitative or qualitative terms, for example by developing climate change scenarios leading to 'possible futures', not 'probable futures' as in statistical analysis. These scenarios have to be downscaled to the level of the system that has to be adapted to climate change. Also in South Africa for example, good climate change scenarios are available (IPCC downscaled), although they haven’t been translated into operational policies for adaptation yet. The step of deciding what course of action is the most reconcilable with the available information and expectations is the most difficult step in dealing with uncertainties, and often leads to a decision not to take any action until more and better information is available. The latter is the case for our case studies in the Kagera Basin, Amudarya Basin, Lower Guadiana, and Upper Tisza where climate change scenarios are not taken into account in current policies, mainly because the uncertainties are too large and too complex for translation into policy pathways. These questions concerning whether to act early or to postpone action, but also the timescale over which policy should be introduced, and the dangers of becoming ‘locked in’ to inappropriate policy pathways are all questions related to the timing and sequencing dilemma (Pierson, 2000). All case studies in this 251
research are confronted with the same timing and sequencing dilemma since their climate change adaptation policies (no matter in which stage of development) are characterized by long time horizons and great uncertainty over potential costs and benefits of different courses of action. Any adaptation action can create unintended impacts on other natural and social systems. In practice, there may be considerable uncertainty over the impact of an adaptation action. In some cases the impact may be clear and immediate, and past experience may be a very useful guide. In other cases, for example where the action is innovative, the consequences may not be known (Adger et al., 2005). A programmatic approach might be an important tool for time sequencing (Wilson et al 2007 & Haug et al 2009), by including proxies for longer-term objectives whose achievements are contingent on more immediate objectives being met (Wilson, et al 2007). In the context of the Room for Rivers process, for example, a programmatic approach involved near-term objectives for adaptation alongside objectives which characterize an improved capacity or ability to address adaptation in the long-term (see also Keeney and McDaniels, 2001). This avoided biasing the selection of alternatives towards those that provide immediate gains. Indeed, an important lesson of successful and adaptive management strategies is the importance of avoiding low-probability but high-consequence outcomes in the long term, even though immediate outcomes may be suboptimal (Gunderson and Holling, 2002). In the Netherlands it meant that spatial requirements for the long-term accommodation of major floods, as a result of expected climate changes, will remain available. All measures to be implemented in the short term need to be consistent with this long-term view (the so-called ‘no regret’ type of measures). The type of solutions sought are those which can work in a range of future conditions, or ones which can be successively adjusted and corrected as new knowledge is gained. Such a flexible framework is necessary since various alternatives are, or will become available at a later stage.
INTEGRATION OF DIFFERENT POLICY FIELDS AND POLICY SECTORS This opportunity refers to the regime elements ‘cooperation structures’, ‘information management’ and ‘policy development and –implementation’ (Chapter 3). One of the earlier mentioned obstacles for climate change adaptation is that development and implementation of climate change adaptation strategies often remains a problem due to, at times, poor cooperation between sectoral governments, poor cooperation across administrative boundaries, and also the protection of vested interests not only by states but also by important individuals in government and even in the science fraternity. Different policy arenas such as climate change adaptation, development assistance and disaster risk reduction, have historically been regarded and financed separately (Human Impact Report, 2009). The same goes for different policy sectors, such as water, environment, spatial planning, agriculture, health and tourism. In this dissertation we have seen a number of examples where these sectors have competing interests and well as conflicting claims as regards environmental services, such as drinking water supply, irrigation water and minimum flows for sustaining ecosystems (which often provide the capacity to buffer from extreme events). Hence, cooperation between these policy fields and sectors can be very challenging, but can also provide tremendous opportunities in terms of cost efficiency.
252
Current water resource regimes are characterized by sectoral fragmentation and limited integration, which are seen as a main reason for low adaptive capacity of these regimes (Pahl-Wostl 2007). Hence, an important institutional adaptation to climate change is sectoral integration, for example, by involving the impacts of climate change in planning processes and macro-economic projections (Stern 2007, 432) and by adjusting institutional arrangements of similar policy issues to each other. The principle of ecosystem goods and services may be a promising approach for improved integration. Ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, flood protection and protection against soil erosion are directly linked to climate change and healthy ecosystems are an essential defence against some its most extreme impacts. A comprehensive and integrated approach towards the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystems and the goods and services they provide is therefore needed.
APPROPRIATE ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION This opportunity refers to the regime element ‘finances and cost recovery’ and ‘risk management’ (Chapter 3). The financing of climate change adaptation appeared to be a major concern expressed by many stakeholders in our case studies. Water pricing in Australia and public-private partnerships in the Netherlands are a few examples in this dissertation which appear to be appropriate economic instruments for climate change adaptation. Also insurance is being mentioned occasionally, although insurance is far from a ‘‘silver bullet’’ in addressing climate change, it offers significant capacity and ability to understand, manage, and spread risks associated with weather-related events, more so today in industrialized countries but increasingly so in developing countries and economies in transition (Mills, 2007). Water pricing mechanisms can be used to send a scarcity signal and help balance supply and demand, while public-private partnerships might enable the public sector to spread the cost of the investment over the lifetime, in contrast to traditional financing where the public sector is required to provide capital, while the benefits will come much later and are mostly uncertain (Bakker & Van Schaik, 2008). One of the principles mentioned occasionally by experts during my interviews is cost recovery complemented by targeted subsidies (see also Le Blanc, 2007). Targeted subsidies are necessary for those unable to pay for water and other basic needs, especially in developing countries.
FINE-TUNING CENTRALIZED CONTROL WITH BOTTOM-UP APPROACHES This opportunity refers to the regime elements ‘governance’, ‘cooperation structures’ and ‘information management’ (Chapter 3). An important conclusion of this disseration is that management regimes characterized by a high level of top-down governance are dominated by lower levels of learning (= single loop learning / ad-hoc problem solving), such as the management regimes in the Alentejo Region, AmuDarya and Kagera Basin. This lower level of learning is being reflected and/or consolidated in less advanced adaptation strategies. Also the Hungarian part of the Tisza is characterized by top-down governance, although they have managed to develop an advanced adaptation strategy (new Vásárhelyi Plan (VTT), 2003), probably caused by the existence of a shadow network in this specific case-study. The VTT is an excellent example of double loop learning and a modified flood defence strategy by local actors and research institutions. However, the 253
current implementation of this plan is seriously hampered, since the centralized management system has not managed to find agreement between different Ministries on the allocation of necessary (financial) resources. In other words, a high degree of top-down governance seems to be a serious limiting factor in this case study as well. At the other end of the axis, the empirical results regarding the type of governance in chapter 6 and 7 suggests that bottom-up governance is not a straight forward solution to water management problems in large-scale, complex, multiple-use systems, such as river basins or large groundwater systems. Instead, all the regimes being analyzed are in a process of finding a balance between centralized control and bottomup approaches. In our case studies we have seen a number of countries (for example the Netherlands, Czech Republic, Hungary, South Africa, Australia, and Thailand) experimenting with institutional settings to find a balance between processes of decentralization and central coordination. Governance regimes where these processes are more balanced seem to be characterized by a higher adaptive capacity (see Chapter 6 and 7). An important observation in our case studies is that the role of government is being readjusted (e.g. in the Netherlands, Australia, and South of Africa), or the need for that is getting more acknowledged (e.g. in the countries of the Kagera Basin, Amudarya and Mekong), in order for them to be able to deal with the complexity and uncertainty related to climate change adaptation. Despite the need to readjust the role of government we can also conclude that there will probably always be the need for a certain degree of top-down governance (or centralized control), for example in the area of transboundary issues, capacity building, setting of standards and conflict resolution. Climate change adaptation and sustainable development require great efforts from governments, since some of its tasks are difficult to replace by other institutional arrangements, especially when it relates to (a lack of) democratic control, monopolies of private parties, or when a policy problem exceeds individual interests. It should be emphasized that even where bottom-up governance or decentralization is a useful tool, the state does not loose its legitimacy. It can play an active role in the mobilization of people in local processes, it can aid in neutralizing local oligarchs, can provide funds for local initiatives, provide technical and professional services to help local capacity building, guarantee quality standards, invest in larger infrastructure and coordinate in externalities that span more that one local government (Bardhan, 2002). In the case of climate change adaptation the government, supported by bottom-up processes, has an important role in providing a clearly defined scope and level of ambition for the process of decisionmaking and policy making for adaptation, facilitating and stimulating learning processes, and the enforcement of law and legislation. However, law and enforcement within the context of climate change adaptation means something else than simply making and enforcing rules from a top down perspective. After all, adaptive management suggests that there should not be one single centre of power, but a system dividing power to multiple centers, or a polycentric governance system. According to Ostrom (2001: 2) “polycentric systems are the organization of small-, medium-, and large-scale democratic units that each may exercise considerable independence to make and enforce rules within a circumscribed scope of authority for a specific geographical area”. Polycentric governance is an important concept from the governance-sphere, which also is mentioned in connection with further related concepts such as “multi-level governance” and “multiple spheres of authority” (Ostrom, 2005: 255; Marks and Hooghe,
254
2004; Rosenau, 2004). In this dissertation it is directly related to the concept of adaptive water governance (see below).
ADAPTIVE WATER GOVERNANCE This opportunity refers to the regime elements ‘governance’, ‘cooperation structures’ and ‘information management’ (Chapter 3). A growing number of studies are showing the benefits of collaborative, adaptive water governance and what it takes to achieve them (a.o. Kashyap, 2004; Folke et al., 2005; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007; Huitema et al., 2009;; Kallis et al., 2009; Engle & Lemos, 2009). Some conditions for success in adaptive water governance are being identified (by Kallis et al, 2009), such as informality, self-organizing interaction and sustained boundary work. However, the same studies mentioned above also help us to see some limitations. For example, less clear is what sort of institutional designs can create and maintain the conditions mentioned by Kallis et al (2009), while assuring that agreements will be implemented in a publicly and politically accountable way. The concept of polycentric governance is an important concept able to deal with those limitations mentioned by Kalles et al (2009). Adaptive governance of ecosystems generally involves polycentric institutional arrangements, which are nested quasi-autonomous decision-making units operating at multiple scales (Ostrom, E. 1996; McGinnis, 2000). They involve local, as well as higher, organizational levels and aim at finding a balance between decentralized and centralized control (Imperial, 1999). As argued by Gunderson & Holling (1995), during times of rapid change informal social networks can provide arenas for novelty and innovation and enhance flexibility, all of which tend to be stifled in bureaucracies. However, these network structures do not replace the accountability of existing hierarchical bureaucracies but operate within and complement them (Kettl, 2000). As observed by Steel & Weber (2001), too much decentralization may counteract its purpose and miss the opportunity of collective action that involves several organizational levels. Therefore, actual river basin operations will be a balance between centralized and decentralized river basin management. In some river basins there will be a clear case for a well-financed regulatory authority deploying centrally planned infrastructure, water measurement and legal safeguards against powerful sectoral interests (Lankford et al., 2006: 10). By offering flexibility and emphasizing learning processes, adaptive water governance promises to better cope with changing risks of floods and droughts, and other forms of changes to water systems, associated with climate change. Taking into consideration (normal) climate variability is already important to successful management of water in many parts of the world driving processes of local, national and regional adaptation. Climate change adds to the existing complexities of achieving just socio-economic development, involving multiple uses of water among growing numbers of users in ways that are both fair and sustainable (Lebel 2007, 2008). Pro-active integration of climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and sustainable development strategies is needed. However, we know, as yet, little on the ‘politics’ of how strategies actually work: trust building, conflict resolution and the way in which different interests are weighed against each other.
255
MECHANISMS FOR FACILITATING SOCIAL LEARNING AND POLICY LEARNING This opportunity refers to the regime elements ‘governance’, ‘cooperation structures’ and ‘information management’ (Chapter 3). The empirical evidence in this dissertation supports the need to focus on processes of learning and institutional change. These learning processes have proven to be an essential requirement for governance systems to deal with increasing uncertainty and surprise (see chapter 7 in particular). As being mentioned in section 11.3, advanced information management may be considered the lubricating oil within cooperation structures, and is considered a crucial prerequisite for facilitating learning processes, building trust and supporting cooperation. In our case studies advanced information management is characterized by joint/participative information production, broad communication between stakeholders, open and shared information sources, flexibility and openness for experimentation and a commitment to dealing with uncertainties. Hence, in order to achieve institutional adaptation, certain elements need to be focused on, including adequate access and distribution of information, collaboration in terms of public participation and sectoral integration, flexibility and openness for experimentation. Participatory approaches such as multi-stakeholder dialogues, group model building and role playing games can also support social learning in actor groups. Mechanisms for facilitating social learning and policy learning are cross-cutting many regime elements and institutional design principles being addressed in this dissertation. Within this context it important to acknowledge that there is a strong interdependence of different regime elements in a water governance regime (Chapter 7). This interdependence is obviously also present between different institutional design principles being observed chapter 8, since many of them show an overlap in their institutional workings, being defined by the governance regime in place. For example, when a case study is characterized by a polycentric governance system, including horizontal and broad stakeholder participation, design principles such as a robust and flexible process, collective choice arrangements and conflict resolution mechanisms will be based on a high level of stakeholder participation. However, one cannot expect that design and implementation of adaptation strategies will be based on a full understanding of the interaction between different regime elements and institutional design principles. Some of them are emergent and pathdependent, and will unfold during the implementation process. Hence, the whole process of adaptation has to be regarded as a systemic learning process as well. In conclusion, substantial investments and improvements in cooperation structures and information management, which is necessary for strengthening the socio-cognitive dimension of water governance systems, and thereby its adaptive capacity, will enable water governance systems to cope with the serious threats posed by climate change.
ROLE AND INFLUENCE OF SHADOW NETWORKS This opportunity refers to the regime elements ‘governance’, ‘cooperation structures’ and ‘information management’ (Chapter 3). Olsson et al. (2006) argues that the emergence of shadow networks for adaptive governance is a selforganizing process often triggered by a social or ecological crisis. The impetus for this is often the 256
recognition of the need for an alternative approach for governing socio-ecological systems. Olsson et al. (2004a) argue that self-organizing processes toward adaptive co-management of ecosystems usually start with responses to crises by individual actors that expand to groups of actors and eventually become multiple-actor processes. Knowledge develops as part of this process and becomes embedded in the emerging organizational and institutional structures. During my research I have encountered two explicit examples of shadow networks within the context of climate change adaptation: in Hungary and in South Africa. However, in both of them I haven’t seen that alternative approaches developed within these networks have become institutionalized yet. Yet, in other case studies such an influence was sensed but the networks themselves were more difficult to characterize and distinguish (e.g in the Netherlands and Western Australia). After all, it really depends on the definition of a shadow network, and without spending too much time on semantics and differences between formal and informal networks, the key challenge in analyzing shadow networks is to distinguish them from genuine stakeholder participation in formal processes. Nevertheless, in case studies showing a more top-down governance style (e.g. Hungary and South Africa) it is easier to recognize shadow networks, since hierarchical structures usually have clearly defined boundaries stipulating who is operating inside or outside the formal decision making process. However, in more adaptive governance regimes with institutionalized bottom-up processes (e.g. in the Netherlands and Western Australia) it becomes very difficult to assess the influence or effectiveness of such networks, especially since experts and stakeholders often participate in different (informal and formal) networks at the same time. In these regimes it becomes very difficult to distinguish shadow networks (if they exist at all) from adaptive networks (Nooteboom, 2006), which are self-organizing groups of policy makers who enable joint factfinding and visualizing a direction towards improvements; or between shadow networks and epistemic 70 communities (Ruggie, 1975, Haas, 1992) , which are expert communities sharing a belief on resolving particular policy problems; or between shadow networks and learning networks (Ruggie, 2002) or communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger 1998), a group of people or practitioners who share common values and beliefs, being actively engaged in learning together from each other. In case studies were broad and horizontal stakeholder participation is institutionalized (e.g. in the Netherlands and Australia) these networks are often interconnected or closely interwoven in hybrid forms, such as multi-stakeholder dialogues with input from experts. A key observation during my research is that in case studies with higher levels of stakeholder participation it is more difficult, or even impossible, to distinguish between a shadow network and/or other types of networks (such as adaptive networks, epistemic communities, learning networks and communities of practice). Even more so, I also argue that in these kind of adaptive regimes the role of shadow networks is being substituted by different types of networks or hybrid forms of it (see examples above). This is shown by the examples of institutionalized multi-stakeholder dialogues with input from a wide range of experts (from different disciplines), and being part of the official decision-making process (see case studies in the Netherlands and Western Australia in chapter 10). This substitution is not so strange, since shadow networks and the other types of networks mentioned above share one single goal, i.e. to provide
70
The concept of epistemic communities was introduced by Ruggie, 1975; and productively elaborated by Haas, 1992
257
alternative approaches and influence decision-making. The substitution is then being explained by our observation that hybrid forms as being observed in more adaptive regimes seem to be more effective (see chapter 10) than the ‘traditional’ shadow networks as we have seen in less adaptive regimes (e.g. in Hungary and South Africa). For example, the management regime in the Hungarian part of the Tisza is characterized by top-down governance, although they have managed to develop an advanced adaptation strategy (new Vásárhelyi Plan (VTT), 2003), probably caused by the existence of a shadow network in this specific case study (Jolankai, 2005). The VTT is an excellent example of double-loop learning and a modified flood defence strategy by local actors and research institutions. However, the current implementation of this plan is seriously hampered, since the centralized management system has not managed to find agreement between different Ministeries on the allocation of the necessary (financial) resources to implement. In other words, a high degree of top-down governance seems to be a serious limiting factor for introducing an advanced climate change adaptation strategy, despite the achievements of a shadow network. As regards South Africa, outside the official processes, there is an emergent influence of shadow networks on the subject of climate change and its implications for the SA water sector, especially among the SA research community which is internationally well connected. In addition, there is an emerging community of non-governmental organizations which is picking up on that issue. More recent forays have been triggered by recent revelations about mismanagement in the water sector, which have resulted in severe impacts on water resources due to pollution and over-abstraction. In general, this dissertation suggests that the role of shadow networks is often being substituted by different types of networks, or hybrid forms of it, in governance regimes with an institutionalized bottomup process (e.g. in the Netherlands and Western Australia). This argument is supported by examples of institutionalized multi-stakeholder dialogues (with input from a wide variety of experts from different disciplines) in the Netherlands and Western Australia (see chapter 10). The substitution is being explained by our observation that hybrid forms as being observed in more adaptive regimes seem to be more effective (see chapter 10) than the ‘traditional’ shadow networks as we have seen in less adaptive regimes (e.g. in Hungary and South Africa). Overview of opportunities for climate change adaptation:
Trust building; Dealing with uncertainties; Integration between different policy fields and policy sectors Appropriate economic instruments, such as public-private partnerships, cost recovery complemented by targeted subsidies, and insurance; Fine-tuning centralized control with bottom-up approaches; Adaptive Water Governance; Mechanisms for facilitating social learning and policy learning (e.g. multi-stakeholder dialogues) Influence of shadow networks (in top-down regimes) Influence of institutionalized bottom-up processes, e.g. multi-stakeholder dialogues (with input from a variety of experts from different disciplines)
258
11.7
INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN PRINCIPLES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
This section is addressing the research question (in section 1.5): based on an exploratory study as well as theoretical insights, what may be appropriate institutional design principles for adaptation strategies in complex, multi-level, governance systems? Based on our observations in Chapter 8 we argue that there is a need to distinguish between design principles for sustaining long-enduring, common pool resource systems on a local scale (based on Ostrom, 1990, 2005) and design principles for an adaptive governance system dealing with the uncertainties of climate change impacts in a complex, open access, cross-boundary resource system, such as river basins in the Netherlands and South Africa or groundwater systems in WA. In our case studies both the scale and the complexity of the policy problem is larger than in the systems studies by Ostrom. For processes of climate change adaptation in multi-level water governance systems we argue that additional design principles, such as mechanisms for facilitating social learning and policy learning, are of paramount importance. Our argument is supported by our empirical analyses in the Netherlands, WA and South Africa. In Chapter 8 we proposed and found empirical support for a set of nine institutional design principles for climate change adaptation in complex governance systems (Table 11.7).
Table 11.7 - Institutional design principles for climate change adaptation in complex governance systems
Design Principle
Explanation
Robust and flexible process
based on transparency, transdisciplinarity, and flexibility (e.g. organizational redundancy); requiring engagement with, and strong representation of, groups likely to be highly affected or especially vulnerable; to enhance the participation of those involved in making key decisions about the system, in particular on how to adapt; providing a basis for reflexive social learning and supporting accountability; including timing and careful sequencing, transparancy, trustbuilding, and sharing of (or clarifying) responsibilities; (in a multi-level context), as functional units to overcome the weakness of relying on either just large-scale or only smallscale units to govern complex resources systems; a purposeful and coordinated activity (e.g. pilot projects) geared to producing novel policy options; taking into account multi-levels, cultural/historical circumstances, multi-issues, multi-perspectives and multiresources; through exploring uncertainties, deliberating alternatives and reframing problems and solutions
Equal and fair (re-)distribution of risks, benefits and costs Collective choice arrangements Monitoring and evaluation of the process Conflict prevention & resolution mechanisms Nested enterprises / polycentric governance
Policy experimentation An integrated approach/strategy tailor-made to local circumstances Policy learning
These institutional design principles provide useful support for a “management as learning”-approach when dealing with complexities and uncertainties. This approach does not foster a narrow blue-print style but rather the opposite locally-appropriate institutions treated as experiments. 259
The design principles have several potential uses in practice. First, by taking into account the issues they highlight decision-exploring, making and evaluating steps at different levels of governance can be made more adaptive. In this type of application the design principles can be seen as diagnostic tools rather than blueprints for institutional reform. The specific solutions are almost always very highly context dependent. Second, the principles should be useful for exploring new, and refining existing adaptation strategies, by focusing more attention on their governance – in particular how decisions about particular strategies are reached and not just their technical content. This can help overcome the frequent neglect of power relations and interests in the making of “adaptation” policy. Third, the principles may be useful to not just planning agencies and processes of governments but also community-based organizations and the private sector interested in working with other stakeholders in pro-active approaches to adaptation. Several of the roles implied by the design principles may be taken up effectively in some situations by non-state actors and multi-stakeholder bodies. The initial set of design principles suggested need further testing and elaboration. In particular issues of generalizability and trust building deserve further exploration. The design principles proposed here arose from explicit consideration of water management challenges in the context of a changing climate. It is not yet clear to what extent these findings are generalizable to adaptation in the water sector in less developed country contexts or to other sectors. Trust building is clearly important to collective action and thus an important component of several design principles. More work is needed on how trust is built starting with areas that chapter 8 and other chapters suggests, such as: early communication of uncertainties, joint/participative knowledge production, open access to, and shared information sources, transparency about the decision-making process, and sharing of responsibilities. As being observed by Huntjens et al. (2008, 2010) (see also chapter 6 and 7) certain regime elements in a water governance regime are interdependent. This interdependence is obviously also present between different institutional design principles being observed in chapter 8, since many of them show an overlap in their institutional workings, being determined by the governance regime in place. For example, when a case study is characterized by a polycentric governance system, including horizontal and broad stakeholder participation, design principles such as a robust and flexible process, collective choice arrangements and conflict resolution mechanisms will be based on a high level of stakeholder participation. However, one cannot expect that design and implementation of adaptation strategies will be based on a full understanding of the interaction between institutional design principles. Some of them are emergent and path-dependent, and will unfold during the implementation process. Hence, the whole of process of adaptation has to be regarded as a systemic learning process as well.
11.8
INSIGHTS ON FUNCTIONING AND EFFECTIVENESS OF PARTICIPATION AND MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PLATFORMS ON WATER AND CLIMATE
This section is addressing the final research question of this dissertation (as formulated in section 1.5): based on an exploratory study as well as theoretical insights, how can participation and multi-stakeholder dialogues on water and climate be made more effective?
260
While research in the part III (chapters 6-8) was targeted at finding general patterns in the functioning and performance of complex governance systems, part IV (chapter 9-10) was zooming in on the main conclusions of part III, in particular, our finding that stakeholder participation and learning processes play a crucial role in the capacity of these governance systems to adapt to climate change. Chapter 9 explains how cognitive mapping and group model building (GMB) have been used for enhancing stakeholder participation in a European, a Central Asian, and an African river basin. We used an analytical framework which covers the goals, the role of both scientists and stakeholders, the process initiation and methods framed by very different cultural, socio-economic and biophysical conditions. Chapter 9 shows how GMB processes have been designed and how their results contribute to policy development. We concluded that GMB does not necessarily lead to the implementation of a new water management but it offers important new insights what stakeholders think about ‘their basins’, which is an indispensable starting point to reshape the prevailing water management regime. Participation processes play a crucial role in implementing adaptive and integrated water management in river basins. A range of different participative methods is being applied; however, little is known on their effectiveness in addressing the specific question or policy process at stake and their performance in different socio-economic and cultural settings. Across all three basins, the GMB processes produced a shared understanding among all participants of the major water management issues in the respective river basin and common approaches to address them. The “ownership of the ideas” by the stakeholders, i.e., the topic to be addressed in a GMB process, is important for their willingness to contribute to such a participatory process. Differences, however, exist in so far that cultural and contextual constraints of the basin drive the way in which the GMB processes have been designed and how their results contribute to policy development. Chapter 10 shows it is possible to draw insights about the effectiveness of dialogues by using relatively simple questions to compare focal events across case studies. Effectiveness is clearly dependent upon not just the quality of participation and facilitation as is widely recognized, but also on the preparation and follow-up actions by conveners and participants around main events. There also appears to be important contextual factors that modify effectiveness of common dialogue strategies which deserve further systematic exploration through comparative analysis. Other scholars have pointed out the importance, for example, of culture in water management (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2008). In this study the Guadiana dialogues were constrained by cultural norms in which public participation was not felt to be meaningful. In the Mekong case the constraint was a culture of government in which key international organization and national governments were used to deliberating with each other and international consultants but not with a wider group of local stakeholders. In IJsseldelta residence were initially mistrustful as central government agencies had not listened to them in the past, but when given a genuine opportunity to contribute they were fully committed. More research about contextual factors and how they influence mobilization of citizens and the effectiveness of different dialogue formats and tactics is needed. Engagement in water governance issues takes place at different levels and distances from formal decisions and negotiations over plans, strategies and allocation of benefits and risks. In water resources management and development the luxury of consensus is rare, but willingness to cooperate and desire for integration is growing. Multi-stakeholder dialogues are a promising compliment to more conventional top-down ways of exploring water management and resource development options, establishing rights
261
and responsibilities, and working towards agreements on plans, strategies and allocations. Consistently making dialogues more effective remains an outstanding challenge. Critical and reflective comparative research on experiences with water dialogues could help further improve water governance practices.
11.9
REFLECTING ON THE SYMBIOGENESIS OF DIFFERENT CONCEPTS
While section 2.11 highlighted the need for a symbiogenesis of different concepts this section will briefly reflect on how this dissertation provided a contribution to the ongoing process of such a symbiogenesis. This dissertation shows that via combination of different (but often closely related) concepts new insights can be derived on the workings of adaptive approaches to water management and water governance. For example, this dissertation shows how concepts such as social learning, beneficial collaboration, stakeholder participation, adaptive management and institutional change are useful for providing insights on the socio-cognitive dimension of a water management regime, but also for explaining the key factors for achieving higher levels of policy learning (section 11.4). Moreover, the concepts mentioned above also helped in explaining the underlying mechanisms of the interdependency of different regime elements (section 11.5). Hence, the concepts may be regarded as complementary concepts necessary for explaining the workings of a water management regime in times of change. I have postulated learning as the nature of the mechanism or agent of policy change (section 11.4). Learning as key for change is also the central tenet underlying most of the concepts used in this dissertation, including a shared focus on trying to explain how and why societies, institutions, and policies change within the context of complex problems. Within this context, approaches which are sensitive to cognition and institutional change are highlighted, including adaptive management, deliberative democracy, social learning and policy learning. These conceptual approaches are considered important for explaining and facilitating change and for coping with complexity and uncertainty in water resources management and climate change adaptation. By providing a framework for transdisciplinary research on adaptive approaches to water management and water governance, but also by reflecting on tools for transdisciplinary research (e.g. cognitive mapping, group model building, multi-stakeholder dialogues), this dissertation provided a contribution to a symbiogenesis of different concepts. This ongoing symbiogenesis is a learning process where the combination of insights from the various traditions sheds new light on the development of adaptive approaches. During this learning process concepts are improved step by step, with contributions not only from producers of new knowledge but also from users. Here, the actors engage in active process of interpretation and construction of reality (Ruggie, 1998). Incorporation of iterative learning cycles into the overall management approach is therefore necessary for a shift towards more adaptive water management (Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007). As already stated in section 2.11, the purpose of a symbiogenesis of different concepts, recommended by this dissertation, is not to establish an all-encompassing scientific theory of the world. Instead, transdisciplinary problem solving aims at pragmatic and problem-specific local integration of knowledge (Hinkel, 2008).
262
11.10 LIMITATIONS OF THIS RESEARCH MEASURING A REGIME’S ACTUAL PERFORMANCE For Chapter 6 it is important to acknowledge that the measures being implemented by the water management regimes is only a part of a regime’s actual performance, since the effectiveness of the measures themselves (e.g. adequate flood protection or sufficient water supply) has not been taken into account (yet). Furthermore, the responsiveness of the case-studies to extreme events as presented in Chapter 6 should be viewed as a snapshot, especially since there normally is a time lag between policy development and implementation of measures. In Chapter 6 this time lag has been taken into account by asking experts to indicate whether measures are already implemented (= physically present), being planned, or necessary, but not being planned (yet). Nevertheless, the research presented in Chapter 6 was not able to indicate: 1) whether the implemented measures are working properly or whether their quality and scale is sufficient to deal with the problems they are designed for; 2) if, how and when the planned measures will be really implemented and whether there will be complications during implementation (e.g. delays, insufficient funds, objection by citizen groups, etc), and 3) measures which are necessary, but haven’t been planned yet, could be planned after all in the near future. It is therefore important to monitor the responsiveness of these case-studies for a longer period and on a frequent basis.
COMPLEX INTERDEPENDENCIES Apart from the physical intervention in the water system a regime’s performance could and should also be measured by its ‘non-physical’ measures, such as awareness campaigns, improved information management and exchange (e.g. flood forecasting), cooperation structures, insurance mechanisms etc. In principle, this could be measures which target all the elements of AIWM, but also target at the formal institutional setting (e.g. European Directives and national or regional water laws). This means that there could be many nonlinear feedback loops within the regime itself, and the regime is in that sense creating its own enabling environment. Especially in regimes with a higher level of AIWM the formal institutional setting is being altered by the demand for governance as regards (new developments in) water related problems, such as the impacts of climate change. However, this complex interdependence is beyond the scope of chapter 6, but has been addressed in more detail, for example, in Chapter 7 on the interdependence between different regime elements, and in Chapter 8 regarding the interdependencies between different institutional design principles. These chapters also show that these interdependencies are important to be taken into account for understanding and analyzing dynamic or transitional systems, for example based on longitudinal research. Chapter 7 builds further upon the methodological limitations identified in Chapter 6, in particular the notion that the output of a water management regime is not only defined by its physical interventions in a river basin, but also by means of its management interventions. Chapter 7 therefore defines the output of a management regime as the level of policy learning being identified in the climate change adaptation strategies of the case studies. Moreover, instead of four case studies this chapter compares eight case
263
studies by means of a formal comparative analysis. Also the method for conducting a formal comparative analysis is different, since it uses a formal technique called multi-value QCA (see chapter 5).
DEPTH OF ANALYSIS Our comparative study on the functioning and effectiveness of multiple-stakeholder platforms on water and climate (Chapter 10) had several important limitations. Only four cases were examined. The cases were compiled post-hoc and although in each case the authors were somehow either involved in the dialogue process and/or were able to carry out interviews with those who had been, the collection of data for different projects limited the depth of analysis possible. For simplicity we selected as units of analysis one or a tight cluster of closely related events as a focus of our analysis of dialogues. In practice all of these ‘cases’ were part of a much larger and less coherent collection of activities, meetings and networking that might constitute a ‘dialogue process’. A more historical, long-term, analysis of individual cases was beyond the scope of this analysis but undoubtedly would reveal further insights about the building of trust and dynamics of relations, and changing understanding of actors involved. Another important limitation was that effectiveness was not systematically assessed. Together with limited set of cases this implies we cannot draw strong conclusions about the design of dialogues without more work.
INFLUENCE OF CONTEXT This PhD research is limited in taking into account all influences of context on climate change adaptation, although it is important to embed adaptation decisions in wider context, since they are not isolated from other decisions, but occur in the context of demographic, cultural and economic change as well as transformations in information technologies, global governance, social conventions and the globalizing flows of capital and (to a lesser extent) labour (see O’Brien and Leichenko, 2000). Nevertheless, context factors have been taken into account (see also section 11.5), for example, in Chapter 9 as regards the influence of socio-economic and political conditions on processes of group model building. Also in Chapter 10 the influence of context on multi-stakeholder dialogues has been addressed explicitly. However, these empirical chapters do not fully cover the wide range of potential factors which could influence the processes related to climate change adaptation. For example, issues related to histories of settlement, ethnicities, class and gender relations have not been taken into account. Along with formal institutional arrangements these social contexts contribute to differences in how risks are allocated and the possibilities for flood and drought politics. Also factors such as water integrity and corruption have not operationalized in the analytical frameworks of this dissertation. Corrupt practices may drain as much as 30 % off the water sector every year. This translates into USD 48 billion over the next decade if counted against the estimated USD 11.3 billion that is needed each year in additional investment to achieve the MDGs on water and sanitation (Global Corruption Report, 2008). In other words, water is a high-risk sector for corruption. Hence, integrity and accountability are critical to good governance of water resources and services (UNDP Water Governance Facility, 2009). Increased water integrity is directly linked to development and poverty reduction. Unethical practices reduce economic growth, discourage investment, violate human dignity, increase health risks and rob poor people of their livelihoods and their access to water (UNDP, 2009). 264
PATH DEPENDENCIES One cannot expect that design and implementation of adaptation strategies will be based on a full understanding of the interaction between different regime elements or different institutional design principles. Some of them are emergent and path-dependent, and will unfold during the implementation process. Hence, the whole of process of adaptation has to be regarded as a systemic learning process as well. The influence of context (see previous section) and/or path dependencies are nevertheless important to be taken into account by studies on institutional change in water governance. This PhD research is limited in covering the full range of complexities and path dependencies related to water management and water governance, its embeddedness in a wider cultural and social context, and the role of power. An interesting concept to be explored in future research is the concept of 'institutional bricolage' (Levi‐Strauss, 1968; Franks and Cleaver, 2007; Sehring, 2009), which explains how local actors recombine elements of different institutional logics and thereby change their meaning.
265
CHAPTER 12 FUTURE RESEARCH The overall objective of this chapter is to make recommendations for promising future research themes as regards climate change adaptation from a water governance and social science perspective, by taking stock of the achievements of this PhD-research and international research. The structure of this chapter is similar to the structure of this dissertation, starting with a section on methodological recommendations (12.1), followed by recommendations for conceptual advancements (12.2 to 12.8), and a final synopsis (12.9). The end of each section provides an overview of recommendations for future research.
12.1
METHODOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
This section builds upon the main conclusions of section 11.1 (Methodological advancements) in particular the following: 1.
Confirmation of the ‘constructivist’ assumption that in a single case study a wide variety exists of different knowledge frames, mental models and value opinions as regards a complex policy problem such as climate change adaptation. A prerequisite for conducting policy related transdisciplinary research is then to have an equal and fair representation of stakeholders and experts (academic and non-academic) involved in the setting of the policy problem under investigation. This is not only important to evaluate, but also to produce, adequate adaptation strategies. This conclusion resulted in my recommendations on ‘participatory’ or ‘collaborative’ action research (see following section);
2.
This dissertation shows it is possible to combining in-depth case studies with more extensive and formal comparative analysis. By doing so, this dissertation shows that new scientific insights can be gained from comparatively analyzing water governance regimes, resulting in my recommendations (in the following sections) that: 1) large comparative assessments and global databases are needed to make progress in our understanding and in developing context sensitive policy advice; 2) a diagnostic approach is required, taking into account complexity in a systematic fashion; 3) systematic reviews (meta-analyses) are necessary for synthesizing the available evidence to inform policy questions related to climate change adaptation from a water governance perspective;
‘PARTICIPATORY’ OR ‘COLLABORATIVE’ ACTION RESEARCH Participatory action research and collaborative action research are two different terms for the same concept, which is defined here as ‘actively involving people in generating knowledge about their own condition and how it can be changed’ (Fals-Borda and Rahman, 1991). Action research aims to contribute both to the practical concerns of people in an immediate problematic situation and to further the goals of social science simultaneously (Gilmore et al., 1986). In other words, there is a dual commitment in action research to study a system and concurrently to collaborate with members of the system in changing it in what is together regarded as a desirable direction. The twofold ambition of developing practically 267
relevant and scientifically sound knowledge requires the active collaboration of researcher and client, and thus it stresses the importance of co-learning as a primary aspect of the research process (Gilmore et al., 1986). Action research involves utilizing a systematic cyclical method of planning, taking action, observing, evaluating (including self-evaluation) and critical reflecting prior to planning the next cycle (O'Brien, 2001). Of course, not all problems and research topics require the same standard approach. Each action research program requires tailor made arrangements, which take - amongst others - into account situational conditions regarding the content of the issues, relationships, and commitments. The principle of involving stakeholders in future research on climate change adaptation in water resources management is important for several reasons. The first reason is that stakeholder involvement and ‘buyin’, or ownership, is crucial for identifying acceptable tradeoffs, for negotiating distributions of costs and benefits and for reaching consensus about the research findings and recommendations (Ashby, 2003). During processes of climate change adaptation, the understanding needed for consensus and compliance requires new knowledge to be generated by research in order to achieve stakeholder ‘buy-in’ and often needs to include expertise drawn from other stakeholder groups (Irwin, 1995). This form of ownership often needs to be established across a range of institutions and levels of decision-making (Martin and Sutherland, 2003). A second reason for involving stakeholders in research is that their involvement is key to coping with the complexities and uncertainties related to impacts of climate change on society and the ecosystem, by bringing in a wider range of perspectives on needs, impacts and options, and having them deliberated openly. At the same time, by engaging with complex governance systems, researchers are better able to understand their dynamics. Hence, more research is needed on the foundations, conditions and pitfalls of action research within the context of climate change adaptation, since it is an important way of overcoming the cleavage between “science” and “practice”, but is also an important tool to enhance the quality of empirical research.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSES / GLOBAL DATABASES Not much work is available on comparative analyses of river basins including the full range of a water management regime’s complexity (Myint, 2005; Wolf, 1997). However, important new scientific insights can be gained from comparatively analyzing governance regimes and scaling the results of AIWM projects and governance of climate change adaptation. A key element of such upscaling is to elaborate a comprehensive methodological framework that allows evaluating all important attributes of adaptive water management and adaptive governance in the context of the impacts of and adaptation to climate change. This endeavour is being undertaken at this moment by the European Twin2Go project, with the purpose of developing methdologicla framework for comparing the performance of governance regimes with the focus on adaptation to climate change (Pahl-Wostl, et al., 2009b). Elements of this dissertation are being incorporated in the methodological framework of Twin2Go (see also section 13.2). Large comparative assessments are needed to make progress in our understanding and in developing context sensitive policy advice. Panaceas have proven to be weak in their explanatory power and not very useful or even detrimental for policy advice (Ostrom et al, 2007; Ingram, 2008). On the other hand, too specific analyses will hardly lead to insights that can be generalized across individual case studies. What is 268
required may be called a diagnostic approach taking into account complexity in a systematic fashion. Such an approach should support context sensitive analysis without being case specific and thus not transferable (Pahl-Wostl and Huntjens, 2010). Methods for qualitative and quantitative comparatie analyses of governance regimes are scarce, amongst others because conceptual and methodological foundations are often (perceived to be) incompatible (Pahl-Wostl and Huntjens, 2010). Agreement on ontology (= data categories and meaning), shared databases on water governance and data collection protocols hardly exist. However, as shown by this dissertation it is possible to combining in-depth case studies with more extensive and formal comparative analysis. To some extent, the strengths of one method can be used to compensate for limitations inherent in the other. It is important to take the research problem, rather than a favorite methodology, to determine the research approach, and both the quantitative and qualitative aspects can be used in a consonant manner (Leon, P. de, 1998). As such it is possible to combine the qualities of the case-oriented approach with the qualities of the variable-oriented approach (Berg-Schlosser, et al., 2008).
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS BY META-ANALYSES Directly related to the recommendation on comparative analyses above, is the need for systematic reviews by meta-analyses. Meta-analysis refers to the statistical synthesis of results from a series of studies (Shepperd et al., 2009), which could include the comparative analyses suggested above, and the comparative studies provided by this dissertation. However, while the statistical procedures used in a meta-analysis can be applied to any set of data, the synthesis will be meaningful only if the studies have been collected systematically. This could be in the context of a systematic review, the process of systematically locating, appraising, and then synthesizing data from a large number of sources (Borenstein, et al., 2009). In the field of ecology, meta-analyses are being used to identify the environmental impact of wind farms, biotic resistance to exotic plant invasion, the effects of changes in the marine food chain, plant reactions to global climate change, the effectiveness of conservation management interventions, and to guide conservation efforts (Borenstein, et al., 2009). Meta-analyses to identify what governance arrangements can contribute to realizing adaptation options, and to increasing the adaptive capacity of society have not been done so far. However, these kind of systematic reviews are necessary for synthesizing the available evidence to inform policy questions related to climate change adaptation from a water governance perspective. While this is probably the most common use of the methodology, meta-analysis can also play an important role in other parts of the research process. For example, in the discussion section of the publication, a systematic review allows to address not only the information provided by the new study, but the body of evidence as enhanced by the new study (Borenstein, et al., 2009). Iain Chalmers and Michael Clarke (1998) see this approach as a way to avoid studies being reported without context, which they refer to as ‘Islands in Search of Continents’. Systematic reviews would provide this context in a more rigorous and transparent manner than the narrative reviews that are typically used for this purpose.
269
Recommendations for future research topics:
12.2
o
How to organize the co-production of new knowledge on climate adaptation?
o
How to incorporate stakeholders’ views in the development of research agendas and research projects?
o
What is collaborative action research within the context of complex governance systems and how can it successfully be applied in practice?
o
Which new scientific insights can be gained from comparatively analyzing water governance systems dealing with climate change adaptation?
o
How are the dilemmas of climate change adaptation governance handled in different countries?
o
Meta-analyses to identify what governance arrangements can contribute to realizing adaptation options, and to increasing the adaptive capacity of society
o
Systematic reviews are necessary for synthesizing the available evidence to inform context sensitive policy questions related to climate change adaptation from a water governance perspective
INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSES
In Chapter 8 we proposed and found empirical support for a set of nine institutional design principles for climate change adaptation in complex governance systems (Table 11.5). Rather than trying to search for the single set of rules that is the optimal set for every type of problem, it is important to focus on the underlying designs of those real-world experiments that have proved to be robust over time. This topic has received a lot of attention lately, amongst others since Prof. Elinor Ostrom has won the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics for her analysis of economic governance; showing how common property can be successfully managed by groups using it. Her work is relevant to many fields, including the institutional analysis of environmental challenges in water resources management; challenges which are being aggravated by climate change impacts. Many researchers have been using Ostrom’s work (Ostrom 1990, 1995, 2005) for analyzing institutions on a local scale, and in this PhDresearch they have been used on a regional scale in the Netherlands, Australia and South Africa, with a specific focus on climate change adaptation (see chapter 8). Important open questions refer to the assessment of the capacity of institutions to adapt to climate change and the way in which institutional arrangements can enhance that capacity. Moreover, to gain an understanding of the underlying processes of climate change adaptation as regards trust building, conflict resolution and pursuits of social justice among parties differentially vulnerable to floods or droughts, and the way in which (i) these processes, (ii) the substance of adaptation processes and (iii) institutional design principles affect each other has so far not been explored in detail. 270
Conceptually, the core requirement will be to develop institutional structures that are robust and flexible under changing conditions. Overall, institutional design principles will need to shift away from concepts such as optimization and (in some cases) efficiency toward concepts such as resilience and flexibility (Moench & Stapleton, 2007). Further research is needed on strengthening the empirical support for developing institutional design principles for adaptation processes at multiple scales, more specifically on policy changes and the initiation and development of adaptation strategies. It is important to take into account adaptation to (normal) climate variability and adaptation to climate change. The first type of adaptation is not something new. Adaptation to climate (as distinct from climate change) is often an ongoing, everyday process. Economic and social activities are already designed and managed in ways that take into account (more or less) the present climate and its variability. Hence, research is needed that will take both types 71 of adaptation (processes) into account, in order to identify general patterns. According to Dover (2009) it is important to investigate the magnitude of past climate change and variability, and of societal responses to these. This may offer enhanced understanding of the parameters of human adaptability (with careful translation of any conclusions to very different current situations) (Dover, 2009). A particularly attractive and under-explored focus in such work would be past institutional resilience in the face of uncertainty and change, a focus argued for in environmental history (Dovers, 2000; Uekoetter, 1998) and made more urgent by issues of climate change. Historical exploration might be broadened away from only climate-related change and uncertainty, to the ways in which other significant disturbances and uncertainties (social, economic, political, epidemics, etc.) have been coped with—or not—by institutional systems (Dover, 2009).
71
In the longer term the distinction between normal climate and climate change will be hard to sustain (van Aalst & Burton, 2000)
271
Recommendations for future research: o
Assessing the capacity of institutions to adapt to climate change and the way in which institutional arrangements can enhance that capacity. Key question to be answered: what governance arrangements can contribute to realizing adaptation options, and to increasing the adaptive capacity of society?
o
Understanding of the underlying processes of climate change adaptation as regards trust building, conflict resolution and pursuits of social justice among parties differentially vulnerable to floods or droughts, and the way in which (i) these processes, (ii) the substance of adaptation processes and (iii) institutional design principles affect each other.
o
Exploring past institutional resilience in the face of uncertainty and change (Dover, 2009).
o
“Understanding the institutional design of effective boundaries and linkages between democratic politics, legitimate authority, and adaptive governance, i.e. the mix of institutions that can provide sufficient responsibility, accountability and democratic legitimacy, without choking off the self-organizing interaction, shared learning, and communication that is at the heart of collaboration” (Kallis et al. 2009)
o
Experimentation and pilot projects. How can we increase the number of such events? How can we secure political support and a willingness to learn from such events?
12.3 APPROPRIATE ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION Finances and cost-recovery (including the variables ‘insurance’ and ‘private sector participation in river basin management’) was one of the regime elements in my analytical framework for the level of adaptive and integrated water management (see chapter 3). The financing of climate change adaptation appeared to be a major concern expressed by many stakeholders in my case studies. I have also seen a variety of ways to address these issues, such as water pricing in Australia and public-private partnerships in the Netherlands as economic instruments for climate change adaptation. Also insurance is being mentioned occasionally. Based on my comparative analyses I have argued (in section 11.7) that appropriate economic instruments are an important opportunity, or better, a necessary requirement for climate change adaptation. Below section suggests some topics for future research, including water pricing, insurance and public-private partnerships. Water pricing Perhaps the best way to utilize water to the best and most-valued uses is to put a price on water, and construct appropriate tariff structures to meet different social, political and economic goals in different situations (Bakker & Van Schaik, 2008). It has been argued that price policy can help maintain the sustainability of the resource itself: when the price of water reflects its true cost, the resource will be put to its most valuable uses (Rogers et al., 2002). Thereby, and assuming the poor can pay for such services, 272
water pricing could contribute to adaptation and, for instance, if resources become scarce and water use is stabilized or reduced. Furthermore, if water resources are managed in an integrated fashion where the economic, legal and environmental aspects complement each other, increased prices can improve equity, efficiency and sustainability of the resource. Thus in the future, water pricing mechanisms can be used to send a scarcity signal and help balance supply and demand (Bakker & Van Schaik, 2008). Insurance The potential for new patterns of extreme events resulting from climate change will likely increase demand for insurance while challenging the industry’s ability to assume new risks (Mills, 2007). Insurance can be regarded as an adaptation measure, as it transfers risk from localities to regional and global insurance and capital markets (Botzen & Van de Bergh, 2006; Bakker & Van Schaik, 2008). On the other hand, one might also argue that insurance might take away individual responsibility to adapt, for example by moving away from vulnerable areas or taking other precautionary measures. Nevertheless, insurances can play an important role in alleviating the negative impacts of climate change by spreading risks among individuals (Bouwer and Vellinga, 2005). According to Botzen & Van de Bergh (2006) economic efficiency will be improved when private insurance coverage against flood damage is extended. However, a continuing role for the government in insurance arrangements is warranted to overcome problems of insurability of weather-related disasters that exist in the private market. As the world’s largest industry, the insurance sector is both an aggregator of the impacts of climate change and a market actor able to play a material role in decreasing the vulnerability of human and natural systems (Mills, 2007). Although insurance is far from a ‘‘silver bullet’’ in addressing climate change, it offers significant capacity and ability to understand, manage, and spread risks associated with weather-related events, more so today in industrialized countries but increasingly so in developing countries and economies in transition. Certain measures that integrate climate change mitigation and adaptation also bolster insurers’ solvency and profitability, thereby increasing their appeal (Mills, 2007). The engagement of the private sector that calculates risk, such as the insurance sector, could provide opportunities to gain insight into risks, and ways to either transfer or reduce risks. Moreover, innovative insurance products, such as catastrophe bonds and weather index insurance systems (e.g. providing payments during drought), can play a viable role if tied to efforts aimed at vulnerability reduction (Bakker & Van Schaik, 2008). However, climate change promises to erode the insurability of many risks, and insurance responses can be more reactive than proactive, resulting in compromised insurance affordability and/or availability. Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) In a review of the empirical literature on watershed partnership by Leach & Pelkey (2001), adequate funding was the most frequent factor for successful partnership, followed by effective leadership and management. One of the main challenges of water governments is: how to finance climate change adaptation plans, operations, infrastructure and projects? The last few decennia new forms of finance scheme and structures have become available and are now commonly used (Bossert et al., 2006). These modern forms, finance schedules and structures are often known as public-private partnerships (or PPP’s). Within the context of climate change adaptation PPP’s might enable the public sector to spread the cost of the investment over the lifetime, in contrast to traditional financing where the public sector is required to provide capital, while the benefits will come much later and are mostly uncertain. 273
Recommendations for future research:
12.4
o
What are appropriate economic instruments for climate change adaptation?
o
Improved understanding of the environmental justice and equity consequences of water pricing
o
How the global distribution of research funds on climate change issues helps or not helps in reducing the difference in research capacity on the issue between North and South.
o
How to connect climate adaptation initiatives of public and private actors?
AGENCY IN ADAPTATION
Many conclusions in chapter 11 directly refer to the role of agency in adaptation. In section 11.5 I have concluded that participation processes play a crucial role in implementing adaptive and integrated water management in river basins. Section 11.7 highlights the importance of leadership in a robust and flexible planning process and collective choice arrangements to enhance the participation of those involved in making key decisions about the system, in particular on how to adapt. Moreover, one of the key conclusions in section 11.8 is that multi-stakeholder dialogues can inform, and help shape, more formal negotiation and decision-making processes, by bringing in a wider range of perspectives on needs, impacts and options, and having them deliberated openly. However, on many occasions, people are still reluctant to share the information and knowledge that they believe gives them power. That explains (see also section 11.5) why advanced information management is not possible without integrated cooperation structures which facilitate joint knowledge production, information exchange, adequate access and distribution of information. An important notion in this respect is that someone who manages knowledge 72 or information is de facto managing knowledge carriers (e.g. individual experts or farmers) or information owners (e.g. organisations). Above conclusions show the centrality of agency in adaptation and below section suggests some topics for future research. Leadership Strong leadership is certainly an important prerequisite in climate change adaptation, since collaboration in governance networks requires leadership (Folke et al., 2005). In a review of the empirical literature on watershed partnership by Leach & Pelkey (2001), effective leadership and management was the second most frequent factor for successful partnership after adequate funding. Leadership is essential in shaping
72
'Knowledge' is often used as a synonym for 'information'. However, I define knowledge as ‘what we know’ and information as ‘what we communicate’ and both terms are therefore not necessarily the same (see also Wilson, 2002).
274
change and reorganization by providing innovation in order to achieve the flexibility needed to deal with ecosystem dynamics. A few decades ago it was already argued by well-known social scientists (e.g. by Anthony Giddens (1984) & Alexander Wendt (1987)) that social structure is both the medium and outcome of action. Actors have preferences which they cannot realize without collective action; based on these preferences they shape and re-shape social structures (albeit with unintended consequences and over a longer period of time (cf. Grin, 2010)); once these social structures are in place, they shape and reshape the actors themselves and their preferences (Giddens, 1984; Wendt, 1987). It is argued by Folke et al. (2005: 58) that leaders can provide key functions for adaptive governance, such as building trust, making sense, managing conflict, linking actors, initiating partnership among actor groups, compiling and generating knowledge, and mobilizing broad support for change. These individuals often have the ability to manage existing knowledge within social networks for ecosystem management and further develop those networks. Lack of leaders can lead to inertia in social-ecological systems (idem, p.111). Social network dynamics and cross-scale interactions Olsson et al. (2006) explicitly suggests that a successful management strategy in governing natural resources is one where actors, during periods of stability, develop new relational ties with various other actors and stakeholders which can be drawn upon in times of change. This resonates with the proposition that informal networks are especially useful in times of changes (Frank et al., 2007; Ramirez-Sanchez, 2007; Bebbington and Perreault, 1999). In this context, Bodin & Crona (2009) suggest that, in combination with empirical studies, theoretical models and simulations of various behavioral characteristics of individuals can provide important insights on how different networks structures can emerge, and how the emerging structures might co-evolve with behavioral changes of the individuals (cf. Hanaki et al., 2007). An important research theme within this context includes the identification of measures for trust building (Korsten & De Goede, 2006; OECD, 2000; Sztompka, 1999; Chadna, 1993, 1995; Lave & Wenger, 1991), e.g. taking action against wrongdoing, monitoring compliance, increasing accountability, and creating a transparent working environment. Multiple stakeholder platforms As being shown in chapter 10 multi-stakeholder dialogues have the potential to play a significant role in improving governance of regional and trans-boundary waters. Multi-stakeholder dialogues aim to create and support spaces in which meaningful conversations can take place among diverse stakeholder groups. In the case of regional and trans-boundary waters, it is hoped, that dialogues can contribute to reducing water conflicts, ensure equitable and fair allocation, and ecological sustainable use and management. A key notion is that dialogues can inform, and help shape, more formal negotiation and decision-making processes, by bringing in a wider range of perspectives on needs, impacts and options, and having them deliberated openly. But many dialogues fail to have much influence. It is not clear if this was because they were done poorly or because circumstances and other factors were not right. Hence, more research is needed on questions about what has been learnt so far, including identifying major pitfalls and opportunities, as well pointing to the needs for further experimentation and research to improve practices.
275
Vulnerability and social injustice Poverty and vulnerability to disasters are closely linked (Brauch et al., 2008), because the poor are disproportionately affected by disasters (GFDRR, 2008), due to their lack of assets with which to smooth consumption and respond to catastrophic events. Moreover, the poor are forced to accept a higher exposure to hazards. Typically, they live in unsafe areas on marginal lands such as flood plains, slopes of steep hillsides, and river beds. With urbanization, and agricultural modernization, more and more economic activities are taking place in seasonally flooded plains, putting more people and infrastructure at risk (Lebel & Sinh, 2007). It is expected that this exposure will increase. Programs and policies to minimize natural catastrophic losses, to improve public and private responses, and to institute appropriate risk transfer mechanisms will have a high anti-poverty impact (GFDRR, 2008; Lebel & Sinh, forthcoming, 2009). Persistent social injustices might be exacerbated by both inaction and misguided climate change adaptation policies (Lebel et al., 2008). Thus, it is important to identify different positions and interests and finding solutions where nobody looses. Lebel et al. (2008) argues that the pursuit of social justice or fair access to resources and allocation of risks, benefits and burdens in managing floods and disasters may be made more difficult by climate change in several ways: uneven distributions of burdens and risks across peoples, places and generations (Adger, 2001; Thomas and Twyman, 2005); international action and agreements tend to not sufficiently take into account the interests, needs or capabilities of vulnerable groups (Paavola and Adger, 2006); there are crucial uncertainties on how climate change will affect seasonal precipitation and extreme rainfall events, interacting with other changes in land and water use to alter flood regimes. As regards vulnerability it is important to mention that women and children are 14 times more likely to die than men during a disaster (Araujo et al. 2007). At the same time, women are often found in much smaller numbers in formal and informal decision-making bodies and consultations on disaster risk management and climate change adaptation (UNDP & AusAID, 2009). They are therefore less likely to receive critical information for emergency preparedness and less likely to participate in decision making and policy development in these fields. Hence, it is extremely important to improve recognition of the fundamental differences in the way women and men are affected by, and contribute to, these issues and in their capacity to cope with and adapt to them. Experiences of different areas of natural resource management demonstrate it is essential to use both women’s and men’s knowledge and roles in communities to build resilience (UNDP & AusAID, 2009).
276
Recommendations for future research: o
Understanding (processes of) trust building and conflict resolution between conflicting parties engaged in dealing with vulnerability to climatic hazards and social injustice
o
Leadership: the development of a vision and navigating governance systems in that direction is getting increasing attention (e.g. Huitema and Meijerink, 2009). But what are the strategies of good leaders, who create adaptability? How do institutions look that allow such entrepreneurs to operate more freely?
o
Advantages and limitations of participatory decision-making: when and how much? What are the constraints and opportunities for deliberation at various scales and how do these effect adaptive capacities?
o
Who is effective at influencing policy and practice with respect to adaptation to climate change in the water sector? How do they achieve their influence? Are coalitions important and if so how do they form? What role do discourses or grand narratives play in shaping questions asked by research and agendas of policy-makers?
o
Desired levels of participation per project phase: how much should the different groups of stakeholders be involved? The future role and responsibilities of Water Boards and Water Authorities?
o
Methods/instruments to facilitate desired level of participation and government responsibilities involved.
o
Public / Private Cooperation: What is the role of the private sector in the development of the water sector? Are there obstacles, or insufficient incentives, which obstruct their participation?
o
Understanding of how disaster and climate change impact on social structure and gender, more specifically, more knowledge on gendered impacts, by sector and by place, is needed
o
To what extent are the actions taken by governments and other actors in the name of adaptation to climate change serve relatively narrow interests and result in redistribution of risks to less powerful or otherwise marginalized social groups. For example: Flood protection measures such as diversions or walls for major cities impacts on other places and people; Water storage dam impacts on fisheries.
277
12.5
MULTI-LEVEL AND MULTI-SECTOR INTERACTIONS
One of the key conclusions of section 11.7 is that development and implementation of climate change adaptation strategies often remains a problem due to, at times, poor cooperation between sectoral governments, poor cooperation across administrative boundaries, and also the protection of vested interests not only by states but also by important individuals in government and even in the science fraternity. This is often accompanied by insufficient communication between actors and reluctance of actors to change. Moreover, the empirical results regarding the type of governance in chapter 6 and 7 suggests that bottom-up governance is not a straight forward solution to water management problems in large-scale, complex, multiple-use systems, such as river basins or large groundwater systems. Instead, all the regimes being analyzed are in a process of finding a balance between centralized control and bottomup approaches. Above conclusions highlight the need for more research on processes of cross-sectoral integration and fine-tuning centralized control with bottom-up approaches. Below section suggests some topics for future research on multi-level interactions (or vertical integration) and multi-sector interactions (or horizontal integration). Vertical integration across levels The need for better understanding of cross-scale interactions in natural resource governance is put forward by many scholars (e.g. Berkes, 2008; Cash et al., 2006; Ostrom, 2005). Such cross-scale interactions also affect how social networks influence governance processes. As stated by Frank et al. (2007), local resource extractors are increasingly linked to global networks of trade (large scale), but the structure of the local social networks (small scale) largely determines who gets to participate and under what conditions. According to Bodin & Crona (2009) a social network perspective holds great potential in enabling analyses of various cross-scale interactions. It could therefore be of great value in researching natural resource governance processes ranging from the local to the global thus enabling understanding of various factors driving global environmental change. A key challenge for policy-makers is how best to integrate important ‘bottom-up’ processes of learning with ‘top-down’ high-level policy strategies and visions. It is clear that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach for adaptation is not appropriate for the complexities of climate change. Strategies should stimulate and support pro-active adaptation responses, whilst retaining the flexibility and robustness necessary for enabling the development, testing and implementation of measures at the local scale. The complexities of climate change adaptation poses a major challenge for strategic policy communities, since integration needs to occur horizontally across different sectors and policy areas. This ultimately will require the consideration of adaptation through existing institutional mechanisms, a process commonly known as ‘mainstreaming’. Horizontal integration across policies Disaster risk recovery, sustainable development and adaptation to climate change fields need to be integrated (Schipper, et al. 2006). The segregation of these fields has often resulted in parallel activities (UNDP/AusAID, 2009). Currently, policy responses to address each of these independently may be redundant or, at worst, conflicting (Schipper, et al. 2006; Lebel et al. 2009). This may be resolved through interaction and institutional overlap among the three communities of practice. There are tremendous opportunities to maximize funding and resources, which may align the goals of, and collaboration 278
between, these fields. To give a concrete example: when adaptation to flood situations is necessary it is relatively easy to adapt the tools for disaster reduction management to also deal with future climate situations. There is however one serious issue: uncertainty. When 'normal' floods can be treated as a statistical phenomenon, under climate change conditions the past is no longer the predictor for the future (see section 11.7 ‘Commitment for dealing with uncertainties’). Considerable thought has been devoted to identifying disaster-management strategies that also support sustainable development. Examples include protection of mangroves, reefs, and beaches to reduce storm surges or watershed management practices that reduce flood and landslide risk (Aalst and Burton 2002). In terms of linkages between climate change adaptation and mitigation within sustainable development, the question of greatest relevance is how to connect these domains operating on different scales and involving a diversity of values and institutional frameworks in a way that would lead to actual policies (Bizikova, 2007). Bizikova (2007) has identified three central research questions important to improving our understanding of capacities to promote integrated responses to climate change in the context of sustainable development: o
When addressing linkages between adaptation and mitigation, from which perspective, climate change or sustainable development, should the local study be approached?
o
What are the synergies and trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation measures, including institutional, economic, social and decision-making determinants, in such a study?
o
Can adaptation and mitigation synergies linked to development priorities be designed in a policyrelevant manner that can be addressed within existing institutional frameworks?
Horizontal integration across sectors Current water resource regimes are characterized by sectoral fragmentation and limited integration, which are seen as a main reason for low adaptive capacity of these regimes (Pahl-Wostl 2007). Hence, an important institutional adaptation to climate change is sectoral integration, for example, by involving the impacts of climate change in planning processes and macro-economic projections (Stern 2007, 432) and by adjusting institutional arrangements of similar policy issues to each other. In general terms there is a need to incorporate climate change adaptation: o
in general economic and social development (especially in developing countries);
o
in agricultural research, policy and development (especially in countries with a high agricultural GNP);
o
in water resources research, policy and development (especially in water scarce areas and areas vulnerable to flooding)
o
in spatial planning (especially when there is much competition for land: densely populated areas) and in infrastructure development
279
Recommendations for future research:
12.6
o
How best to integrate important ‘bottom-up’ processes of learning with ‘top-down’ highlevel policy strategies and visions
o
How to deal with cooperation between different governmental institutions and other parties in order to facilitate effective decision making?
o
Studying strategies as multilevel governance processes, since most modern environmental problems, including climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and social development, are multi-scale in their causes and consequences. These questions need to be addressed at all levels of policy-making, from the environmental behavior of the individual to national decision-making and transboundary or global institutions and organizations
o
Development of a better understanding of the links between the MDGs, climate change and other global changes, which should translate into national and international policies for water and environment with special emphasis on the developing world.
o
Cross-border issues: How to tune adaptation measures in border areas? (f.e. retention in the Rhine basin)
GOVERNANCE MODES
A number of conclusions in chapter 11 refer to modes of water governance. For example, section 11.4 highlights the importance of the socio-cognitive dimension as an essential emerging property of a water governance system, depending on a specific set of structural conditions. In particular, better integrated cooperation structures and advanced information management are structural conditions leading towards higher levels of policy learning. This socio-cognitive dimension is inherent to the adaptive capacity of water governance systems, and in systems where this dimension is absent or less developed there is lacking capacity for developing advanced adaptation strategies. In section 11.6 I have highlighted the importance of cross-sectoral integration, polycentric institutional arrangements and fine-tuning centralized control with bottom-up approaches. All of these conclusions fit well within the concept of adaptive water governance (Folke et al., 2005; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007; Huitema et al., 2009) and this section provides some recommendations for future research on governance modes. There might be some overlap with section 12.2, since the institutional design principles for climate change adaptation are directly related to governance modes in place (see also section 11.7). Adaptive Water Governance A growing number of studies are showing the benefits of collaborative, adaptive water governance and what it takes to achieve them (a.o. Kashyap, 2004; Folke et al., 2005; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007; Huitema et al., 2009; Kallis et al., 2009; Engle & Lemos, 2009; Huntjens et al., 2009). Some conditions for success in adaptive water governance are being identified (by Kallis et al, 2009), such as informality, self-organizing interaction and sustained boundary work. However, the same studies mentioned above also help us to
280
see some limitations. For example, less clear is what sort of institutional designs can create and maintain the conditions mentioned by Kallis et al (2009), while assuring that agreements will be implemented in a publicly and politically accountable way. Adaptive governance of ecosystems generally involves polycentric institutional arrangements, which are nested quasi-autonomous decision-making units operating at multiple scales (Ostrom, E. 1996; McGinnis, 2000). They involve local, as well as higher, organizational levels and aim at finding a balance between decentralized and centralized control (Imperial, 1999). By offering flexibility and emphasizing learning processes, adaptive water governance promises to better cope with changing risks of floods and droughts, and other forms of changes to water systems, associated with climate change. Taking into consideration (normal) climate variability is already important to successful management of water in many parts of the world driving processes of local, national and regional adaptation. Climate change adds to the existing complexities of achieving just socio-economic development, involving multiple uses of water among growing numbers of users in ways that are both fair and sustainable (Lebel 2007, 2008). Pro-active integration of climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction, and sustainable development strategies is needed. However, we know, as yet, little on the ‘politics’ of how strategies actually work: trust building, conflict resolution and the way in which different interests are weighed against each other. Successful governance in water resources management depends on adaptive institutions (Pahl-Wostl 2002, 396) that are able to cope with complexity and uncertainty and to face new challenges such as climate change. In order to achieve institutional adaptation, certain elements need to be focused on, including adequate access and distribution of information, collaboration in terms of public participation and sectoral integration, flexibility and openness for experimentation (Huitema et al., 2009). Participatory methods such as group model building and role playing games can also support social learning in actor groups. Such learning environments have proven to be crucial for the adaptive governance of socioecological systems (Folke et al., 2005; Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007; Huntjens et al., 2008). Policy learning Policy learning approaches generally hold that states can learn from their experiences and that they can modify their present actions on the basis of their interpretation of how previous actions have fared in the past (Bennet and Howlett 1992). However, many of the fundamental elements of such learning remain conceptually unclear and, as a result, the entire phenomenon of experience-induced policy change remains difficult to operationalize (Grin & Loeber 2007; Leicester 2007; Kemp & Weehuizen 2005; Sanderson, 2002; Chapman 2002; Bennet and Howlett 1992). In the field of system sciences it is especially important to conduct more kinds of longitudinal research for analyzing dynamic or transitional systems, especially focusing on the complex interdependencies between context, management system and its outputs/outcomes. For example, information management and cooperation structures seem to be crucial for moving towards structural change, and they support innovative approaches which then will encounter structural constraints which need to be overcome. This is the essence of triple loop learning, as being described by Huntjens et al. (2009), leading to transitions and paradigm shifts. However, this type of research on interdependencies in complex systems is still in its infancy, but is expected to lead to important scientific innovations in the nearby future. 281
Linking knowledge and action Knowledge without dissemination is of little use and it is therefore crucial to analyze knowledge-action linkages, but also to disseminate the synthesized, consolidated and generalized results of all research themes to a broad audience and especially those who take decisions on a policy level. Additionally, in order to promote reaching policy makers and water managers and to enhance up-take of research results, it is important to produce outcomes that are directly relevant for planning and decision making in the complex politics in which water management takes place. Stakeholders should therefore be involved in all steps of analyzing and synthesizing project outcomes as well as identifying best practices for governance and implementation. A couple of research questions stand out: How have successful initiatives to make water management more adaptive brought together knowledge based on experience and embedded in practices with that generated by science and held by scientific experts? What institutional arrangements help improve the linking of knowledge and action, through for example, reciprocal learning about practices and scientific insights? Accountability and legitimacy Integrity and accountability are critical to good governance of water resources and services (UNDP Water Governance Facility, 2009). Ensuring the accountability and legitimacy of governance is an important field for research in climate change adaptation, as it is for related governance fields, such as disaster risk reduction, poverty reduction and sustainable development. The more regulatory competence and authority is conferred upon larger institutions and systems of governance - especially at the global level the more we will be confronted with questions of how to ensure the accountability and legitimacy of governance (Biermann, et al. 2009). Simply put, we are faced with the need to understand the democratic quality of water governance. What are the sources of accountability and legitimacy in water governance? What are the effects of different forms and degrees of accountability and legitimacy for the performance of governance systems? What institutional designs (e.g. for achieving more transparency or less corruption) can produce the accountability and legitimacy of earth system governance in a way that guarantees balances of interests and perspectives?
282
Recommendations for future research: o
Managing the relationship between climate adaptation and mitigation; How to prevent a shift of all policy attention to adaptation, whilst neglecting mitigation?
o
Understanding policy and strategic decision making, priority listing and group decision making for effective use of water resources and accountability
o
Implementation issues: how to implement adaptation measures? How to overcome resistance? How to realize 'implementation capacity'?
o
Longitudinal research for analyzing dynamic or transitional governance systems, especially focusing on the complex interdependencies between context, management system and its outputs and outcomes
o
Understanding of adaptation strategies as multilevel governance processes, since most modern environmental problems, including climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and social development, are multi-scale in their causes and consequences. These questions need to be addressed at all levels of policy-making, from the environmental behavior of the individual to national decision-making and transboundary or global institutions and organizations
o
European legislation such as the Flood Directive and Water Framework Directive has introduced the river basin as governance level. Is this indeed the right level from the perspective of climate adaptation (if there actually is a right level)? How transparent and democratically accountable is decision making at this new level? How is interplay with existing institutions taken care of?
o
How to ensure the accountability and legitimacy of governance for climate change adaptation? What are the effects of different forms and degrees of accountability and legitimacy for the performance of governance systems? What institutional designs (e.g. for achieving more transparency or less corruption) can produce the accountability and legitimacy in a way that guarantees balances of interests and perspectives?
283
12.7
INFLUENCE OF CONTEXT ON CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
In section 11.6 I have concluded that adaptation to climate change is often context specific, can take many forms and involves a range of public and private actors, from government-level down to organizations and individuals. As being concluded in Chapter 7 and 8, adaptation strategies need to be tailor-made to local circumstances, related to the specific geographic and water-related circumstances, the socio-economic circumstances, the political system and the specific institutional arrangements. In this section I will zoom in on the research needs related to political, societal and environmental dimensions assumed to have a strong influence on climate change adaptation. The social and political contexts for vulnerability and responding adaptively vary greatly among places and countries, for example, with respect to histories of settlement, ethnicities, class and gender relations. Along with formal institutional arrangements these social contexts contribute to differences in how risks are allocated and the possibilities for flood and drought politics. Hence, it is important to recognize that the ability to adapt in individual countries may depend on the availability of financial and human resources, technologies, levels of education, available information, suitable planning and the overall infrastructure (Huntjens, et al 2008). When combining this with substantial variety in cultural, ecological and geographical regions it is important to acknowledge the risk of institutional monocropping (Ostrom (2005, p. 38). Simply imposing a uniform set of institutional design principles and ignoring local ecological and social knowledge does not produce the variety needed to learn from experience. Hence, adaptation must be finely tuned not only to the specific features of local geography and ecology, but to local economies and cultures (Evans, 2004: 31–32). Water integrity and corruption Corrupt practices may drain as much as 30 % off the water sector every year. This translates into USD 48 billion over the next decade if counted against the estimated USD 11.3 billion that is needed each year in additional investment to achieve the MDGs on water and sanitation (Global Corruption Report, 2008). In other words, water is a high-risk sector for corruption. Hence, integrity and accountability are critical to good governance of water resources and services (UNDP Water Governance Facility, 2009). Increased water integrity is directly linked to development and poverty reduction. Unethical practices reduce economic growth, discourage investment, violate human dignity, increase health risks and rob poor people of their livelihoods and their access to water (UNDP, 2009). Recently the Transparency International Foundation issued an important publication on the subject of combating corruption, called “Global Corruption Report 2008 – Corruption in the Water Sector”. This report underlines the importance of worldwide combat against corruption in the water sector, which is becoming more urgent due to the climate change and growing water shortages around the world. The report states that without adequate handling of corruption practices the economic cost of water will increase unnecessary, which might cause socio- economic and political tensions, and will have negative impacts on the environment. The report stresses, that combating corruption should become a fixed point on the water governance agenda in many countries.
284
Increased levels of uncertainty When adaptation to flood situations is necessary it is relatively easy to adapt the tools for disaster reduction management to also deal with future climate situations. There is however one serious issue: uncertainty. When 'normal' floods can be treated as a statistical phenomenon, under climate change conditions the past is no longer the predictor for the future. This increased uncertainty is a characteristic of the whole area of climate change research and policy. A first step to deal with it always includes a scenario analysis leading to 'possible futures', not 'probable futures' as in statistical analysis. These scenarios have to be downscaled to the level of the system that has to be adapted to climate change. For climate change and water in Europe e.g. this is done in a project 73 called SCENES. Both steps, the scenarios and the downscaling, introduce large uncertainties. There is no way to make these disappear: they have to be dealt with. Hence, developing methods for dealing with uncertainties in decision-making (e.g. long terms scenario analyses, risk assessments, vulnerability 74 assessments) are regarded as a key research area at various research institutes in Europe, but also outside Europe, notably in the United States and Australia. The climate-water-energy nexus
75
There are many aspects of this complex interaction. Examples include: (i) the increasing use of desalination plants in coastal cities (e.g. in Australia, several middle east countries and in the United States) to augment dwindling water supplies, and the types of energy sources used to power the desalination plants; (ii) production of biofuels, which inevitably involves water usage and thus competes with food production and other uses for water, and (iii) household energy and water use. Each of these has significant implications for water governance and for institutional design and structure. In addition, some adaptation actions that are taken may increase vulnerability rather than reduce it. Some examples of this "mal-adaptation" are sea level rise or flood protection infrastructure that may disturb the natural dynamic nature of coastal and river systems, or cooling or water supply technologies that may increase energy consumption. Ecosystem services Ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, flood protection and protection against soil erosion are directly linked to climate change and healthy ecosystems are an essential defence against some its most extreme impacts. A comprehensive and integrated approach towards the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystems and the goods and services they provide is therefore needed. 76
Evidence suggests that working with nature’s capacity to absorb or control impact in urban and rural areas can be a more efficient way of adapting than simply focusing on physical infrastructure. Green
73
see e.g. http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/lang/375287) For example at the Copernicus Institute, Jeroen van der Sluijs et al. have developed tools to deal with uncertainty in decision making (http://www.geo.uu.nl/20419main.html) 75 Personal communication with Will Steffen, Australian National University 76 See Impact Assessment, the Green Infrastructure Approach, chapter 4.1, page 29. 74
285
77
Infrastructure can play a crucial role in adaptation in providing essential resources for social and economic purposes under extreme climatic conditions. Examples include improving the soil’s carbon and water storage capacity, and conserving water in natural systems to alleviate the effect of droughts and to prevent floods, soil erosion and desertification. Hence, it is important to explore the potential for policies 78 and measures to boost ecosystem storage capacity for water in Europe.
Recommendations for future research: o
Developing methods for dealing with uncertainties in decision-making (e.g. long terms scenario analyses, risk assessments, vulnerability assessments)
o
What strategies and governance arrangements are needed in water management to take into account not only existing uncertainties but also the possibility that some uncertainties about future conditions may expand not lessen as climate change progresses?
o
What are the political implications of framing adaptation as climate risk management? Who benefits from such framings?
o
Investigating the potential and impacts of alternative energy production methods (e.g. biomass derived energy, small-scale hydropower etc.) and management of natural resources, which may mitigate climate change but often require major adaptations in developing countries and countries in transition.
o
Understanding of processes and feedbacks as well as quantifying the linkages between global and local changes (e.g. global warming, land use changes, sea level rise, coastal erosion, extreme events, global dimming, changes in snow and ice storage, urban heat islands, change of hydrological process, policy changes etc.) and water related ‘natural’ disasters (e.g. floods and droughts) by means of process studies and modelling (incl. uncertainty estimation) using new technological developments. The investigations should be done at a range of scales, paying attention to important scale interactions.
77
Green Infrastructure is the interconnected network of natural areas including some agricultural land, such as greenways, wetlands, parks, forest preserves and native plant communities, and marine areas that naturally regulate storm flows, temperatures, flooding risk, and water, air and ecosystem quality. 78
European Commission (2009) White Paper on Adapting to climate change: Towards a European Framework for Action. Brussels, COM(2009) 147 final
286
12.8 PERFORMANCE OF WATER GOVERNANCE REGIMES IN DEALING WITH THE IMPACTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE One of the major challenges of my PhD research was to evaluate the performance of different modes of governance. In section 11.2 I have argued that merely looking at physical interventions provides an incomplete picture of the capabilities or outputs of a water management regime. Hence, drawing conclusions merely based on the physical response would be premature, and I have stated that a management regime with a higher level of AIWM might be more productive in terms of management interventions than in terms of physical interventions. From this perspective, the research conducted in chapter 6 provided valuable insights as regards the research design for analyzing complex multi-level governance systems. One of the limitations of the research design in Chapter 6 is the narrow definition of the outputs of a management regime, being defined as physical interventions in the river basin. Based on the limitations identified in Chapter 6 the following chapter 7 has been focusing on climate change adaptation strategies, being defined as an output of the management regime. These strategies have been assessed by looking at physical AND management interventions. Additionally, the outputs of these management regimes have been evaluated in terms of different levels of policy learning (Hall 1988; Bennet 1992; Sanderson 2002; Huitema & Meijerink 2007; Grin & Loeber, 2007). I strongly believe that such a research design, thanks to lessons learned in Chapter 6, is better equipped for analyzing the adaptive capacities of water management regimes. For the key conclusions of chapter 7 see section 11.4. Important to note is that also part IV of this dissertation has been looking at the performance of governance regimes, albeit a specific part of it, namely the functioning and effectiveness of participation and multi-stakeholder dialogues on water and climate. For the key conclusions of part IV see section 11.8. Evaluating the performance of different modes of governance has been put forward by many authors as a key focal area for future research (Jordan, 2009; Biermann et al 2009, and others). Measures for a governance regime performance should allow assessing and evaluating the degree of satisfaction with the current state of the regime. Obviously a governance regime should achieve its stated goals. Failure of doing so is a clear sign of a non-satisfactory performance without alluding to any normative claims. Good governance principles The formulation and adaptation of good water governance principles is considered a difficult but important challenge for climate change adaptation. In the context of climate change, a major challenge is to create governance structures that are flexible and robust in the face of uncertainties and inevitable surprises. According to the UNDP (2000), successful water governance is characterized by being participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and following the rule of law. A major challenge is to understand how all these different processes in concert determine certain policy outcomes and how change in governance regimes occurs and what is required to meet the normative principles of good water governance. Implementing good governance is a critical success factor shown by many studies, which highlight that better governance leads to better performing governments. Success of government programs should be measured by the true advantages they create for citizens, communities and industries. Many different stakeholders create a demand in the short and long term for efficient and effective management (Water Partner Foundation, 2009). 287
Improving the effectiveness of good governance starts with asking questions such as: why are certain decisions being made and others not? Who are involved in making these decisions? Which formal and informal rules and regulations apply? Governance of the water sector is changing in many countries as a result of the development of new policies, legislation and regulation issues. The differences between countries in terms of water governance are often related to the specific geographic and water-related circumstances, the socio-economic circumstances, the political system and the specific institutional arrangements. These circumstances also determine the flexibility and power of countries to adopt certain changes in water governance. Many countries are faced with great challenges to make their public governance system more efficient, for instance related to (from: Water Partner Foundation, 2009): (1) decentralization; (2) involving the private sector in water management, including through public-private partnerships; (3) introduction of integrated water resources management or integrated watershed management concepts; (4) reorganizing and strengthening of central authorities; (5) introduction of water pricing or water rights policies; and (6) implementation of anti-corruption measures. Adaptive capacity and resilience A better understanding of inherent characteristics of institutions to stimulate the adaptive capacity of water management regimes can provide guidance to decision makers designing management and governance institutions to respond to climate change. 79
The Dutch IC12 project has identified six criteria for measuring adaptive capacity. These are: 1.
Variety: Whether institutions encourage a diversity of problem definitions and solutions;
2.
Learning capacity: Whether institutions encourage actors to learn;
3.
Space for planned and innovative autonomous action: Whether institutions provide actors room for both planned and unplanned action;
4.
Leadership; Whether institutions give actors the opportunities to take the lead;
5.
Availability of resources: Whether institutions have available resources;
6.
Fair governance: Whether institutions allow for fair systems of governance.
For analyzing these criteria (Gupta et al., 2010) constructed a scorecard for adaptive capacity (see below figure). This card can help academics and social actors to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to stimulate the adaptive capacity of society to respond to climate change; and to focus on whether and how institutions need to be redesigned (Gupta et al., 2010).
79
Gupta et al. (2010)
288
From: Gupta et al., 2010
Research focusing on characterizing and measuring adaptive capacity and resilience of different social systems has grown steadily in the past few years (Tol and Yohe, 2007; Janssen and Ostrom, 2006; Brooks and Adger, 2005; Schroter et al., 2005). Most studies in this area have tended to focus either on broader comparative national scale assessments or detailed case studies at the local level. Too specific analyses will hardly lead to insights that can be generalized across individual case studies. On the other hand, while national or regional scale assesments might be conducted more efficient, cost-effective, and consistent, they are limited in their ability to capture the details operating at lower scales where the effects of climate change impacts are more likely to be experienced and resources to respond to be available (Adger et al., 2005). Still, large comparative assessments are needed to make progress in our understanding and in developing context sensitive policy advice. Panaceas have proven to be weak in their explanatory power and not very useful or even detrimental for policy advice (Ostrom et al, 2007; Ingram, 2008). What is required may be called a diagnostic approach taking into account complexity in a systematic fashion. Such an approach should support context sensitive analysis without being case specific and thus not transferable (Pahl-Wostl and Huntjens, 2010). Reducing vulnerability by enhancing resilience, adaptive capacity and disaster risk reduction Especially in developing countries poverty and vulnerability to disasters are closely linked. (Brauch et al., 2008) The poor are disproportionately affected by disasters (GFDRR, 2008), due to their lack of assets with which to smooth consumption and respond to catastrophic events. Moreover, the poor are forced to accept a higher exposure to hazards. Typically, they live in unsafe areas on marginal lands such as flood plains, slopes of steep hillsides, and river beds. With urbanization, and agricultural modernization, more and more economic activities are taking place in seasonally flooded plains, putting more people and infrastructure at risk (Lebel & Sinh, 2007). It is expected that this exposure will increase. Programs and 289
policies to minimize natural catastrophic losses, to improve public and private responses, and to institute appropriate risk transfer mechanisms will have a high anti-poverty impact (GFDRR, 2008; Lebel & Sinh, 2009). Recommendations for future research: 1
How do we measure vulnerability (over time and space) and how do we characterize resilience and adaptive capacity in multifunctional landscapes?
2
Assessing the inherent characteristics of institutions to stimulate the adaptive capacity of society to respond to climate change; and to focus on whether and how institutions need to be redesigned.
290
CHAPTER 13 PHD-RESEARCH SPIN-OFFS This chapter presents a brief overview of spin-offs of this PhD research. It will show where results of this PhD research have been used for developing either new research or policy projects or for inclusion in scientific papers, policy papers or books. The following projects/products will be highlighted: 1.
ASEM Waternet Scorecard;
2.
Twin2Go;
3.
Water Governance Cards;
4.
Pilot project on institutional strengthening, water governance and climate change adaptation in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam;
5.
Group model building for an environmental security assessment in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam;
6.
Cross-comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Strategies across Regions, A Synthesis product of EU NeWater;
7.
The Adaptive Water Resource Management Handbook, A Synthesis product of EU NeWater;
8.
Special issue in Ecology and Society on participation techniques in water resources management, A Synthesis product of EU NeWater;
9.
European Commission Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive;
10. Conference papers and presentations for international conferences, seminars and other fora; 11. Extended articles in Dutch policy magazines, including Change Magazine and Openbaar Bestuur (Dutch journal on Public Administration)
13.1
ASEM WATERNET SCORECARD
In order to facilitate a comparison of ongoing work in the selected projects and river basins of ASEM Waternet, a scoring methodology was being developed (Huntjens, et al., 2007, updated, 2009). A substantial part of this methodology is based on the analytical framework presented in Chapter 3 (Huntjens et al., 2008; 2010). This methodology for ASEM Waternet is intended to support the comparison between the ongoing projects and/or river basins, which will hopefully open new perspectives for water managers and 291
stakeholders in both Europe and Asia. The developers expect there to be reciprocal exchange of insights based on experiences in all basins without necessarily assuming wholesale transferability of models in Asia to Europe or vice-versa (Miller & Hirsch 2002). Key contrasts in context include levels of economic development and wealth, histories in political systems and international relations, and diversity of state and more local water management institutions, for example, related to rice production, flood management and navigation. The main objective of this activity is to develop a methodology for comparing water management and governance regimes across the set of selected river basins in ASEM Waternet, and eventually this experience could be used to develop protocols and initial entries for a global database to support broader comparisons in the future (being developed by the Global Water System Program, www.gwsp.org). With only a small number of cases it is not expected major generalizations to suddenly emerge but the contrasts to help refine the analyses and consideration of options in each basin. The outputs of the scoring, and the feedback on the scoring methodology, could be used for:
Supporting more in-depth comparative analyses of the case-studies in ASEM Waternet; Developing protocols and initial entries for a global database to support broader comparisons in the future; Facilitate knowledge exchange between river basin authorities and the wider water policy communities in the different basins; Draw general insights applicable to other basins in a comparative analysis of water management and in particular governance regimes in the different basins.
The first analysis was done for 4 Asian, the Bang Pakong, Yellow River, Red River and deltaic areas of the CHARM project (Coastal Habitats and Resources Management) and 4 European river basins, the Mondego, Tisza, Guadiana and Rhine basin. CHARM is a Thai project supported by the EU. With only a small number of cases it is not expected major generalizations to suddenly emerge but the contrasts to help refine the analyses and consideration of options in each basin. Amongst others the methodology is developed in order to facilitate knowledge exchange in the different basins and to draw general insights in water management and governance applicable to other basins. Thus, the analysis focuses mainly on the current water governance regimes in the basins. Investigations have a time scale of about 5- 10 years. The table below provides a complete outlay of indicators of the scorecard based on the methodologies described above. IWRM Element
Time to Start (Adaptive)IWRM 0 points
(Adaptive)IWRM on its Way 2 points
(Adaptive)IWRM Getting Results 4 points
Status Score
First order outcomes: Assembling the enabling conditions for IWRM Political will
No policy and implementation framework for introducing IWRM (including environmental flows)
A policy and implementation framework for introducing IWRM (including environmental flows) exists but is weakly enforced
A policy and implementation framework for introducing IWRM (incl. environmental flows) and to demonstrate its application is
292
Water conservation
No policy and implementation framework for water use, conservation, and recycling
A policy and implementation framework to promote efficiency of water use, conservation, and recycling is weakly enforced
River basin organization
No RBO exists yet
Regulations
No legal and regulatory framework to implement the principles of IWRM and its financing
RBO has been formed but mandate is not well-defined; and organizational set-up and operational responsibilities need improvement Legal and regulatory framework to implement the principles of IWRM and its financing is not satisfactorily enforced
Water rights
No water rights or entitlement administration and customary rights not respected.
Existing water rights or entitlements administration are partly or inefficiently implemented
IWRM financing
No government budget for IWRM
Limited government budget allocated for IWRM
Issue identification
No specific baseline or issue analysis
Incomplete issue analysis and/or causal chain analysis
Constituency building IWRM project status
No stakeholders analysis
Incomplete identification of stakeholders and their interests In preparation
No project
adequately enforced but with scope for improvement A policy and implementation framework to promote efficiency of water use, conservation, and recycling is adequately enforced but with scope for improvement RBO operates under a clear mandate and organizational-setup; and improves its performance through capacity building programs Legal and regulatory framework to implement the principles of IWRM and its financing is satisfactorily enforced and complied through sound implementing rules and regulations Water rights or entitlements administration are implemented well, respecting traditional or customary water use rights of local communities and farmers and farmer organizations Government budget for IWRM is institutionalized at some levels of governance Conduct of causal chain analysis Identification of management issues, transboundary issues from environmental and socioeconomic point of view Identification of stakeholders and their interests In operation
Second Order Outcomes: Programme/project implementation as behavioral change Stakeholder participation
No stakeholder participation in river basin planning and management process
Limited stakeholder participation in river basin planning and management process
Private sector contribution
No private sector participation in IWRM
Private sector participation in IWRM is partly introduced
Sectoral integration
Sectors separately analyzed resulting in policy conflicts and emergent chronic problems
Information management and sharing
Understanding fragmented by gaps and lack of integration of information sources that are proprietary
Water and agricultural management are strongly linked, however water management is subordinate to agricultural management Joint research and information exchange need improvement; there are still gaps in certain types of information, communication about uncertainties, assumptions, needs, etc.
Polycentric, horizontal, broad stakeholder participation occurs in project specific or river basin planning decisions under an enabling framework Several cases of private sector participation in IWRM
Cross-sectoral analysis identifies emergent problems and integrates policy implementation
Comprehensive Understanding achieved by open, shared information sources that fill gaps and facilitate integration
293
Decision support information
No river basin information systems to support IWRM
River basin planning
No river basin plan or strategy
Public awareness
No public awareness programs for IWRM
Public awareness programs for IWRM has just been introduced; and are minimal in scope
Water education
IWRM not yet introduced in school programs
IWRM is occasionally introduced in school programs
Economic instruments
No raw water pricing and/or other economic instruments exist
A system of raw water pricing and/or other economic instruments is partly or inefficiently enforced
Water allocation
No system of water allocation resulting to conflicts in water use
Limited implementation of a system of water allocation
Wastewater permits
No system of wastewater discharge permits and effluent charges
System of wastewater discharge permits and effluent charges need improvement
A river basin plan or strategy exists as basis for basin investments. The plan gets updated regularly with participation and ownership of basin stakeholders Public awareness programs for IWRM are regularly implemented in collaboration with civil society organizations and the media IWRM is regularly introduced in school programs; and with potential to be an integral part of school curricula A system of raw water pricing and/or other economic instruments is satisfactorily enforced that provide share in IWRM costs, stimulate water demand management and conservation, protect the environment and pay for environmental services Water allocation among uses and geographical areas is implemented in the basin but there is scope for improvement, including for participatory and negotiated approaches, and for incorporating indigenous knowledge and practices System of wastewater discharge permits and effluent charges are acceptable to stakeholders
Infrastructure for multiple benefits
No water resources infrastructure providing multiple benefits (such as hydropower, water supply, irrigation, flood management, salinity intrusion, and ecosystems maintenance) Massive, centralized infrastructure, single sources of design, power delivery
A few water resources infrastructures providing benefits; but not efficiently managed
Several water resources infrastructures exist; and with scope to improve management
Trends to decentralisation of infrastructure, e.g. detention reservoirs in upper and middle part of River instead of merely dike reinforcements
Appropriate scale, decentralized, diverse sources of design, power delivery
Watershed investment
No investment to protect and rehabilitate upper watersheds
Enough investments to protect and rehabilitate upper watersheds in close collaboration with local communities and civil society organizations
Allocation of financial resources
Financial resources concentrated in structural protection (sunk costs)
Minimal investment to protect and rehabilitate upper watersheds; with little collaboration with local communities and civil society organizations Public and private instruments exist, but need improvement
Scale of infrastructure
River basin information systems to support IWRM are not upgraded, not working efficiently, and not publicly available No river basin plan or strategy exists yet; but there is river basin profile for basic basin information
River basin information systems are up to standards but there is wide scope for improvement
Financial resources diversified using a broad set of private and public financial instruments
294
Disaster management
No investments in combined structural and nonstructural interventions
Separate and minimal investments for either structural or nonstructural interventions
Flood forecasting
No flood forecasting and warning systems
Flood damage rehabilitation
No investments in the rehabilitation of infrastructure after floods
Flood forecasting and warning systems exist but need improvement Government provides limited budget allocation for the rehabilitation of infrastructure after floods
Water quality monitoring
No basin-wide water quality monitoring and application of standards
Partial water quality monitoring and weak application of standards
Substantial investments in combined structural and nonstructural interventions to reduce vulnerability against floods, droughts, chemical spills and other disasters Flood forecasting and warning systems are adequate and efficient Government provides enough investments for the rehabilitation of infrastructure after floods
Basin-wide water quality monitoring; and adequate application of standards
Third Order Outcomes: Achievement of specific ecosystem goals Revenue gathering
No change in revenue gathering
Unequal revenue gathering depending on categories
Human quality of life
No improvement or worsening
Limited to some categories
Water quality
No structural and nonstructural interventions that reduce point and non-point water pollution
A few structural or nonstructural interventions that reduce point and non-point water pollution
Wetland conservation
No investment to conserve and improve wetlands with steady loss of wetlands
Minimal investment to conserve and improve wetlands as integral part of the river basin ecosystems maintaining things as they are
Fisheries yield improvement
No measures to protect and improve fisheries
Limited measures with limited results
Successful revenue gathering from those benefiting from the exploitation of watershed and coastal resources Greater equity in human quality of life and development of more diversified livelihoods Several structural and nonstructural interventions that reduce point and non-point water pollution Substantial investments to conserve and improve wetlands as integral part of the river basin ecosystems with significant quality increase Adequate measures with significant results
Groundwater
No groundwater management with a worsening of situation
Groundwater management is either just starting or is weakly enforced enough to maintain a status quo
Sustainable groundwater management is institutionalized as part of IWRM and starts giving measurable results
Fourth Order Outcomes: Sustainable watershed and coastal conditions and uses Social sustainability
Non-equitable use of water resources
Economic sustainability
Inefficient use of water resources
Environmental sustainability
Ecosystem integrity is seriously jeopardized, and worsening water quality conditions
Political empowerment
Water stakeholders and citizens have no democratic opportunities to influence and monitor political processes and outcomes
Equitable use of water resources is taken into account, but needs improvement Use of water resources is becoming more efficient, but needs improvement Governance is taking into account ecosystem integrity, and water quality protection, but needs improvement Water stakeholders and citizens have some democratic opportunities to influence and monitor political processes and outcomes, but this needs
Equitable use of water resources
Efficient use of water resources and the role for water in overall economic growth Improved governance allows for enhanced sustainable use of water resources and ecosystem integrity Granting water stakeholders and citizens equal democratic opportunities to influence and monitor political processes and outcomes
295
Economic, Social, Cultural and Environmental equilibrium
Water quality and abundance of resources have been improved but not the dwellers’ economic situation
improvement Water quality and abundance of resources have been improved but benefit only to a fraction of the society
A desirable and dynamic balance between social and environmental conditions are sustained and benefit to everybody
Analytical framework There are many possible approaches and methodologies for self-assessment and evaluation. Within the ecosystem management context, these approaches may be grouped into two categories: Performance evaluations, designed to assess the quality of the execution of a programm and the degree to which they meet the mandate and responsibilities awarded to them and the commitments made to funding institutions. Outcome evaluations, assesses progress towards the program’s goals. The focus, therefore, is on the impacts of a program on the watershed and its coastal zone natural and human dimensions of concern to the program or the project. An outcome evaluation examines the trends and indicators of direct relevance to the program and works to objectively estimate the relative contributions of ecosystem-based management policies and processes to observe cultural, social, economic, and environmental change. Outcome evaluations, is the subject of this scoring exercise. The proposed scorecard composition is made of a number of indicators commonly used for watershed management monitoring, organized around four orders of outcomes. The unifying framework developed by Olsen (2003) allows the desegregating of the sustainable development ultimate goal into a sequence of more tangible thresholds of achievement through the project’s or program’s life. This framework suggests the sets of indicators that may be used to trace the evolution of an IWRM project or program as they progress from the baseline conditions usually documented during the preparatory and starting stages to progressively more sustainable conditions and patterns of use. The framework describes the First Order as the most critical outcomes generated by the program/project since it concerns the building up of the enabling conditions or the foundations of the future activities. Building on methods noticeably developed by Canada’s International Development Research Center (See “Outcome mapping”, www.idrc.org), the implementation of a program/project is defined in the Second Order as changes in behavior in the institutions and human population within and/or affecting the ecosystem in question. Only after the requisite changes in behavior have been practiced for a sufficient period can improvements be expected in the environment and in the social benefits that constitute the Third Order achievement of the environmental and societal goals selected in the earlier phase of the program/project design. In an operational sense, the ultimate goal of sustainable forms of water resource management may be considered as a “north arrow” that points in the direction of desired change. It is important to recognize that some expressions of First, Second and Third Order outcomes will accumulate concurrently within a given period of time. While there are causal relationships between the three Orders, they are of course not achieved in a strictly sequential order following the learning by doing mode. Experience has repeatedly reconfirmed that the most successful initiative focus their efforts on one or two issues and to expand their scope as experience, capacity, and constituencies are built.
296
The scoring could provide interesting insights, only when it is coupled to an issue analysis and/or road maps of on-going projects. In other words, the scoring results should be embedded in a wider context. At this moment we have a single point in time scoring, which is not taking into account path dependencies, in other words, time series analysis would be necessary to draw any conclusions on developments in the case-studies. Additionally, Nguyen van Diep (IET) has mentioned that the scoring methodology could be used for monitoring purposes when done in sequence (which is one of our initial objectives within this context). Such a sequential scoring (thus monitoring) should preferably be done by one and the same person for assuring its validity. Taking above comments into account it is too early to come up with sound conclusions based on the current scoring. However, the current results could serve as a starting point for the monitoring of our case-studies. Furthermore, the scoring has proven useful, to a certain extent, for identifying similarities and differences between ASEM Waternet case-studies (also one of the initial objectives). But it is rather limited so far based on comments mentioned above. Nevertheless, for future purposes it would be worthwhile that Platform papers under development (see synthesis of parallel sessions) would use the scoring methodology for identifying the similarities and differences between other case-studies, especially when they are considering a collaboration or exchange with other case-studies.
13.2
TWIN2GO
The aim of Twin2Go is to review and synthesize the research on adaptive and integrated water resources management in basins around the world. A key element for scaling up the results of the different IWRM projects is to elaborate a comprehensive methodological framework that allows evaluating all important attributes of adaptive water management and adaptive governance in the context of the impacts of and adaptation to climate change. The purpose of the comparative analysis of Twin2Go is an assessment of the performance of governance regimes with the focus on adaptation to climate change. As a first step for the development of a methodological framework, Twin2Go builds upon recent conceptual and methodological advances used in the projects. For the project’s final methodological framework it has reviewed methods and the conceptual frameworks applied in the various projects. Elements from several frameworks being developed in this dissertation have been used for developing the final methodological framework of Twin2Go: 1)
In particular, the variables and indicators for “Actor networks with emphasis on the role and interactions of state and none-state actors and power relationships”, next to “multi-level interactions across administrative boundaries and vertical integration across levels and horizontal integration across sectors” are for a large part derived from the framework for assessing the level of adaptive and integrated water management (Huntjens et al., 2008; 2010), presented in Chapter 3 of this dissertation, and;
2)
Some elements from the framework for assessing multi-stakeholder dialogues (Lebel et al., 2009), as presented in Chapter 10. In particular, the set of shared questions about the initiation, format, content and outcome of dialogues were used, and; 297
3)
13.3
Some elements from the ASEMWaternet Scorecard, presented in section 13.1.
WATER GOVERNANCE CARDS
The analytical framework presented in chapter 3 as well as the institutional design principles for climate change adaptation (see chapter 8) provided a substantial input to developing a methodology called Water Governance Cards. This methodology is being developed, and was being tested in Vietnam, by Patrick Huntjens (on behalf of the Water Partner Foundation, The Netherlands) and Hans Bossert (Nijenrode Business University). Water, water management and good water governance are becoming more important topics around the world, since it is essential for the well being of humanity and for healthy and sustainable ecosystems. Water is a prerequisite for countries combating poverty and hunger, managing health care, reducing child mortality, and protection of natural resources. Access to clean drinking water is a universal need and essential basic right. This has to be considered in combination with the fact that about 1.1 billion people have no access to clean drinking water. There is a growing conscience that this problem not only relates to finding technical and financial solutions, but also to good and efficient local and national government structures. In other words: Water Governance could be improved drastically. Against this background the Nyenrode Business University in co-operation with the Water Partner Foundation took the initiative to initiate a scientific study to the efficiency of Water Governance in those countries with whom the Netherlands remains close cooperation in the field of water management. The objective of the study is to develop Water Governance Fact Sheets that describe the status of Good Water Governance in a specific region or country. Those fact sheets, or Water Governance Cards, could be used to describe and monitor the efficiency of Water Governance in countries throughout a number of years. The Water Governance Cards aim to assist many different countries to improve the efficiency of their water governance practices, and will enable donor countries to monitor the impact of their financial support to these countries in terms of water governance. The Water Governance cards will be development on the basis of objective and academic evaluation criteria that enable a quantitative and qualitative description of important aspects of good water governance. To do so, a theoretical framework for these water governance cards had to be developed. Based on actual theoretical insights and recent field research done by many different institutes such a theoretical model has been developed as a first part of this research effort. Secondly, this theoretical framework had to be tested in practice as to determine whether or not the framework actually will generate the needed support as envisaged (see figure 13.3). The research team was given the opportunity to test the 80 framework in a pilot study in Vietnam. In this pilot study the current status of water governance in Vietnam has been assessed using the framework. This has led on the one hand to conclusions of the
80
Funded by ASEMWaternet (www.asemwaternet.org)
298
righteousness of the framework and on the other hand gave us interesting insight in the state of development of water governance in Vietnam. It has proofed to be a very interesting and fruitful project. The outcome of this research effort is a more complete description of the Water Card Methodology, and an elaboration of this methodology for the pilot case.
Figure 13.3 - Structure of the pilot project for Water Governance Cards (Water Partner Foundation, 2009)
13.4
CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION IN THE MEKONG DELTA, VIETNAM
In particular based on experiences and insights on climate change adaptation in water management resulting from this dissertation, and from the NeWater project more in general, a unique consortium has been setup on the request of Vietnamese knowledge institutes to develop a project on institutional strengthening, water governance and climate change adaptation in the Mekong Delta. Hence, a project proposal has been developed by Patrick Huntjens (on behalf of the Water Partner Foundation, The Netherlands) and the Dutch Institute of Environmental Studies (IVM), and Deltares, in close collaboration with the Vietnamese counterparts. This proposal is explicitly based on the needs identified by the Vietnamese counterparts (Diep, Nguyen van, et al, 2007), and as such this proposal is demand driven. The main goal is to facilitate a participatory planning process in a pilot project, in order to develop an integrated and community based risk management strategy, in particular dealing with the impacts of climate change in the area. The overall objective is to provide a good example of the added value of such an interactive planning process and integration of different challenges into one strategy. The pilot area is the Vam Co Dong (East Vam Co) catchment in Long An Province, as a branch of the Mekong River, located on the verge of rural areas and the western suburbs of Ho Chi Minh City. 299
The added value of this project is that it introduces and implements a pragmatic approach for Adaptive and Integrated Water Resources Management (AIWM), by introducing a systematic process to improve management approaches by learning from the consequences of implemented management strategies. A key element is the active involvement of stakeholders in the process of developing, implementing and monitoring of the climate change adaptation strategy. This project will especially target at building adaptive capacity: strengthening the networks of stakeholders, information exchange, and thereby building trust between stakeholders and creating awareness of uncertainties and options, readiness for change (e.g. climate change) etc.
13.5 GROUP MODEL BUILDING FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY ASSESSMENT IN THE MEKONG DELTA Chapter 9 shows the added value of Group Model Building (GMB) in producing a shared understanding among all participants of the major water management issues in the respective river basin and common approaches to address them. GMB helps to look systematically at the integration of different knowledge frames, conflicting attitudes and ideas of what is wanted and needed. These benefits of GMB, amongst others, led to the inclusion of the GMB tool in conducting an Environmental Security Assessment (ESA) in the Mekong Delta, being executed by Patrick Huntjens (on behalf of the Water Partner Foundation, The Netherlands). The ESA is commissioned and developed by the Institute for Environmental Security (IES) in the Netherlands, and funded by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The purpose of the assessment is to obtain a comprehensive and integrated understanding of the issues, their root causes and effects in the study area, and based on this understanding make recommendations. The GMB tool will be used to undertake a participatory assessment of threats to the current and future availability of goods and services from a healthy environment for humankind and nature. At the same time the GMB is expected to identify ways to address the threats, amongst others by providing causeeffect linkages. The ultimate objective of this Environmental Security Assessment is promoting environmental security and poverty alleviation in the U Minh Ha forests in the Mekong Delta. These lifesupporting forest ecosystems are under serious threat and in some parts even dead because of overexploitation and overutilization, while other parts still have high ecosystem value. There is a chance to address poverty issues by means of sustainable park management, securing ecosystem services for poor communities (including Khmer minority), but also providing employment opportunities, e.g. in park management or eco-tourism.
13.6 CROSS-COMPARISON OF CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION STRATEGIES ACROSS REGIONS As a synthesis product of EU NeWater a paper has been developed (and published in Water Resources Management) on a cross-comparison of climate change adaptation strategies across regions. This paper includes the key results and conclusions presented in chapter 7 of this dissertation. Also parts of the
300
methodology for assessing the physical interventions in a river basin (Chapter 6) have been incorporated in the methodology of this paper. The cross-comparison was performed, considering six large river basins as case study areas. Three of the basins, namely the Elbe, Guadiana, and Rhine, are located in Europe, the Nile Equatorial Lakes (NEL) region and the Orange basin are in Africa, and the Amudarya basin is in Central Asia. The evaluation was based mainly on the opinions of policy makers and water management experts in the river basins. The adaptation strategies were evaluated considering the following issues: expected climate change, expected climate change impacts, drivers for development of adaptation strategy, barriers for adaptation, state of the implementation of a range of water management measures, and status of adaptation strategy implementation. The analysis of responses and cross-comparison were performed with rating the responses where possible. According to the expert opinions, there is an understanding in all six regions that climate change is happening. Different climate change impacts are expected in the basins, whereas decreasing annual water availability, and increasing frequency and intensity of droughts (and to a lesser extent floods) are expected in all of them. According to the responses, the two most important drivers for development of adaptation strategy are: climate-related disasters, and national and international policies. The following most important barriers for adaptation to climate change were identified by responders: spatial and temporal uncertainties in climate projections, lack of adequate financial resources, and lack of horizontal cooperation. The evaluated water resources management measures are on a relatively high level in the Elbe and Rhine basins, followed by the Orange and Guadiana. It is lower in the Amudarya basin, and the lowest in the NEL region, where many measures are only at the planning stage. Regarding the level of adaptation strategy implementation, it can be concluded that the adaptation to climate change has started in all basins, but progresses rather slowly.
13.7
THE ADAPTIVE WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK
As a synthesis product of EU NeWater “The Adaptive Water Resource Management Handbook” has been developed. The printed Guidebook was published by Earthscan, and first published by Earthscan in UK and USA in 2010. In particular, Chapter 9 on Group Model Building has been used as the key input for a section on Participatory Modelling (section 3.1 in the Handbook) and for a section on the Orange case study (Chapter 11 in the Handbook). This book explains the benefits, outcomes and lessons learned from adaptive water management (AWM). In essence AWM is a way of responding to uncertainty by designing policy measures which are provisional and incremental, subject to subsequent modification in response to environmental change and other variables. Included are illustrative case studies from seven river basins from across Europe, West Asia and Africa: the Elbe, Rhine, Guadiana, Tisza, Orange, Nile and Amudarya. These exemplify the key challenges of adaptive water management, especially when rivers cross national boundaries, creating additional problems of governance.
301
13.8 SPECIAL ISSUE IN ECOLOGY AND SOCIETY ON PARTICIPATION TECHNIQUES IN WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT As a synthesis product of EU NeWater a Special Feature on Implementing Participatory Water Management: Recent Advances in Theory, Practice and Evaluation is in the process of being published in Ecology and Society. One of the submissions recently accepted for publication is Chapter 9 of this dissertation. Focus and objective of the Special Feature (Source: www.newater.info) Many current water planning and management problems are riddled with high levels of complexity, uncertainty and conflict; so-called “messes” or “wicked problems”. These problem situations, which used to remain the domain of technical water managers, are increasingly entering the public policy sphere as resources and individual implementation power become scarce, and conflicts between water users and interest groups proliferate, adding a previously over-looked social dimension to the complex systems being managed. The realisation that there is a need to consider the values, knowledge and perspectives of these “stakeholders” in collaborative decision-making processes has led to a multitude of new methods and processes being proposed, which include “participatory” forms of modelling, planning and decisionaiding processes. Despite an increasing uptake of such methods around the world in water management, as well as in other sectors of natural resources management and public policy fields such as urban transport, health and technology risk assessment; and despite the proliferation of scientific literature on the evaluation of participation processes in many of these fields - including water management -, two pivotal questions have not yet been clearly answered in the scientific literature: 1. 2.
What are the benefits of using participatory approaches? How exactly should these approaches be implemented in complex social-ecological settings to exploit these potential benefits?
These questions are not only of interest to the scientific community but equally to water managers and policy makers. This is in particular as the lack of clear insight means that in many cases the potential for effective water management remains unattained. In the study of sustainable ecological and social systems the first two questions concretise into a third one that reaches beyond the one-time application of participatory approaches to water management:
How can participatory approaches be most appropriately used to encourage transition to more sustainable ecological, social and political regimes in different cultural and spatial contexts?
The answer to this question is equally open. Given the increasingly perceived scarce and fragile state of water resources in many countries, this question is of urgent practical relevance. This special feature on participatory water management starts to address these three questions by outlining recent advances in theory, practice and evaluation related to the implementation of participatory water management. The feature is largely based on an extensive range of case studies that
302
have been implemented and analysed by cross-disciplinary research teams in collaboration with practitioners and in a number of cases policy makers.
13.9 EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMON IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY FOR THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE
Chapter 7 of this dissertation has been used in the European Commission Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2009). NeWater Deliverable 1.7.9b of Huntjens et al. (2008) has been referred to and is suggested for further reading, next to a handful other reports, in Chapter 4: ‘Getting started: How to build adaptive capacity for management under climate change.’ Source: http://circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/env/wfd/library?l=/framework_directive/guidance_documents/manage ment_finalpdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d
13.10 CONFERENCE PAPERS AND PRESENTATIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES, SEMINARS AND OTHER FORA On many occasions I was offered the opportunity to present (part of) the results of my PhD-research to international audiences, including the following events (in chronological sequence): Name of event
Place
Date
Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis NeWater General Assembly ASEM Technical Seminar on Water Governance CAIWA 2007, International Conference on Adaptive & Integrated Water management – Coping with complexity and uncertainty ASEM Technical Seminar on River Basin Management NeWater General Assembly ASEMWATERNET Mid-term conference CRC for Irrigation Futures Annual Research Forum QCA Seminar: Fine-tuning of ongoing csQCA and mvQCA applications Final International NeWater Conference: Adaptive Integrated Water Resources Management under Uncertainty Guest Lecture for Interdisciplinary minor Governance of Aquatic Resources and Environments Policy lecture at Directorate-General Water on Water Governance & Climate Change Adaptation IARU International Scientific Conference on Climate Change Fifth World Water Forum
Bloomington, United States Hortobagy, Hungary Bangkok, Thailand Basel, Switzerland
September 2006 October 2006 April 2007 November 2007
Jeju, South Korea Hurghada, Egypt Lisbon, Portugal Canberra, Australia Louvain, Belgium
January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 September 2008 September 2008
Sevilla, Spain
November 2008
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
December 2008
The Hague, The Netherlands
January 2009
Copenhagen, Denmark
March 2009
Istanbul, Turkey
March 2009
303
Adaptive governance lecture at Institute of Environmental Studies (IVM) Final International Conference of ASEMWaternet EU-China River Basin Governance (RiBaGo) Research Network, Inaugural Workshop Workshop on Adaptive water governance and stakeholder participation in river basin management in the Asia-Pacific Region Partners voor Water ‘Waterproof!’ – Workshop on Water Governance
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
October 2009
Changsha, China Macau, China
November 2009 November 2009
Chiangmai, Thailand
March 2010
Maarssen, The Netherlands
April 2010
13.11 EXTENDED ARTICLES IN POLICY MAGAZINES In the Netherlands two extended policy articles (in Dutch) have been published, directly related to the results and conclusions of this PhD-research. The first article is called ‘Samen blijven leren in het waterbeheer’ (translated: ‘Keep learning together in water management’) and is published in Change Magazine. The second article is called ‘Waterbeheer en een veranderend klimaat’ (translated: ‘Water Management and a changing climate’) and has been published in Openbaar Bestuur (Dutch policy magazine for Public Administration).
304
REFERENCES
Aalst M.V., Burton, I. (2002) The last straw: integrating natural disaster mitigation with environmental management. Disaster Risk Management Working Paper Series No. 5, The World Bank, 59 pp Abrams, L.C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., Levin, D.Z. (2003) Nurturing Interpersonal Trust in Knowledge-Sharing Networks. Academy of Management, 2003 Adger, W.N. (2001). Scales of governance and environmental justice for adaptation and mitigation ofclimate change. Journal of International Development, 13, 921-931. Adger, N. (2003) Social aspects of adaptive capacity. Pages 29–49 in J. Smith, J. Klein, and S. Huq, editors. Climate change, adaptive capacity and development. Imperial College Press, London, UK. Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W. and Tompkins, E. (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change 15(2), 77-86 Agnew, J., Corbridge, S. (1995) Mastering Space. Hegemony, territory and international political economy (London: Routledge). Akkermans, H.A., Vennix, J.A.M. (1996) Clients’ opinion on group model-building: an exploratory study. System Dynamics Review 13(1): 3-31. Alkan Olsson, J. and Andersson, L. (2006) Models as a tool in watermanagement in Jöborn, A, Danielsson, I, (red.) Talking about water, VASTRA Gothenburg University, Chapter 5. Amineh, M.P., Grin, J. (2003) Globalisation, States and Regionalization: Analysing post-Cold War Security in the Mediterranean Region, chapter 11 (p. 267-276) in: Hans Günter Brauch, P.H. Liotta, Antonio Marquina, Paul F. Rogers & Mohammed El-Sayed Selim (eds), Security and Environment in the Mediterranean. Conceptualising Security and Environmental Conflicts. Heidelberg etc.: Springer Verlag. Andersen D.F., Richardson, G.P. (1997) Scripts for group model building. System Dynamics Review 13(2):107-129. Araujo , A, Quesada-Aguilar, A, Aguilar L & Pearl, R (2007) Gender Equality and Adaptation. Women’s Environment and Development Organization and The World Conservation Union, www.genderandenvironment.org, accessed October 6, 2008. Argyris, C. (1999) On Organizational Learning, 2nd ed., Blackwell Business Publishers, Maldem, UK. Argyris, C., Schön, D. (1974) Theory in Practice. Increasing professional effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Landmark statement of 'double-loop' learning' and distinction between espoused theory and theory-in-action. Argyris, C., Schön, D. (1978) Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
305
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1996) Organizational learning II: Theory, method and practice, Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Armitage, D. (2005) Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management. Environmental Management 35:703–715. Armitage, D., M. Marschke & R. Plummer (2008). Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 86-98. Art, D. (2006), The Politics of the Nazi Past in Germany and Austria, New York: Cambridge University Press Arvai, J., G. Bridge, N. Dolsak, R. Franzese, T. Koontz, A.Luginbuhl, P.Robbins, K. Richards, K. Korfmacher, B. Sohngen, J. Tansey, & A. Thompson (2006) Adaptive management of the global climate problem: bridging the gap between climate research and climate policy. Climatic Change, 78(1), 217-225. Ashby, J. (2003) Uniting Science and Participation in the Process of Innovation – Research for Development In: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods - Uniting Science and Participation, Edited by Barry Pound, Sieglinde Snapp, Cynthia McDougall, and Ann Braun. Earthscan/IDRC 2003 Baccaro, L. and K. Papadakis (2008) ‘The downside of participatory-deliberative public administration’. Paper presented at the Center for European Studies, Harvard University, Nov. 14, Cambridge, MA. Bakker, M., Schaik, H. van (2008) Climate change adaptation in the water sector – Financial issues. CPWC Working Paper Balsiger, P.W. (2004) Supradisciplinary research: history, objectives and rationale. Futures 36, 407-421 Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. Ehglewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, N-J. Bardhan, P. (2002) Decentralization of Governance and Development. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(4), 185-205. Bebbington, A., Perreault, T. (1999) Social capital, development, and access to resources in highland Equador. Economic Geography 75, 395–418. Bennett, C.J., Howlett, M. (1992) The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences 25: 275-294, 1992. Berenschot (2007) Proces evaluatie totstandkoming PKB Ruimte voor de Rivier. Berenschot Adviesbureau, Utrecht, 3 juli 2007. Berger, P.L., Luckmann, T. (1967) The Social Construction of Reality : A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge (Anchor, 1967; ISBN 0-385-05898-5). Berg-Schlosser, D., De Meur, G., Rihoux, B., Ragin, C.C. (2008) Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) As an Approach. In: Rihoux B, Ragin CC (editors) Configurational Comparative Methods. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, Thousand Oaks and London, Sage, pp. 1-18.
306
Berkes F, L. Colding J, and C. Folke (eds.) (2002) Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA., 2002. Berti, M.L., Bari, M.A., Charles, S.P., Hauck, E.J. (2004) Climate change, catchment run-off and risks to water supply in the south-west of WA, Department of Environment, W.A. Biermann, F. (2007). 'Earth system governance' as a crosscutting theme of global change research. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions., 17(3), 326. Biermann F, BetsillM, Gupta J, Kanie N, Lebel L, Liverman D, Schroeder H, Siebenhuner B (Eds), (2009) ``Earth system governance: people, places and the planet'', Report No 20, Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Project, International Human Dimensions Programme, Bonn, http://www.earthsystemgovernance.org/publications/2009/scienceplan.html Biswas, A.K. (2001) Water policies in the developing world, International Journal of Water Resources Development, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 489-499. Biswas, A.K. (2004) Integrated Water Resources Management: A Reassment. Water International 29 (2), June: 248-256 Bizikova, L. (2007) Climate change adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development: integration options for policy. Paper for the joint TIAS-GWSP workshop on ‘Global assessments: bridging scales and linking to policy’, Adelphi, USA, 10-11 May 2007 Bodin, O., Crona, B.I. (2009) The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 366–374 Bohman, J. (1996), Public Deliberation – Pluralism, Complexity and Democracy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Boonstra, J.J. (2004) Introduction. In: Boonstra, J.J. (Ed.) Dynamics of organizational change and learning. Wiley, Chichester Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., Rothstein, H. (2009) Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Wiley, 2009. Bormann, B.T., Cunningham, P.G., Brookes, M.H., Manning, V.W., Collopy, M.W. (1994) Adaptive ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-341. 22 pages Borowski, I., and Hare, M. (2006) Exploring the gap between water managers and researchers: difficulties of model-based tools to support practical water management. Water Resources Management, 21(7): 1049-1074 Bos, B., Grin, J. (2008) Doing Reflexive Modernization in Pig Husbandry: The Hard Work of Changing the Course of a River. Science, Technology & Human Values, vol. 33, no 4, p. 480-507. Bossert, J., Meuleman, L., Weber, J., Zwennes, N. (2006) Public governance, from theory to practice: examples of innovation in public organizations. Den Haag: SDU (2006). ISBN 9012106486 307
Botzen, W. J. W. & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2006). Bounded Rationality, Climate Risks and Insurance: Is There a Market for Natural Disasters? IVM Working Paper 06/08. Bouwen, B., Taillieu, T. (2004) Multiparty collaboration as social learning for interdependence: developing relational knowledge for sustainable natural resource management. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 14: 137-153 Bouwer, L. M. & Vellinga, P. (2006). On the flood risk in The Netherlands. Flood Risk Management in Europe: Innovation in Policy and Practice. Begum, S. et al. (eds.). Springer Verlag, Berlin, in press. Brannstrom, C., Clarke, J., Newport, M. (2004) Civil society participation in the decentralisation of Brazil's water resources: assessing participation in three states. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 25(3), 304-321. Brauch, Hans Günter, Úrsula Oswald Spring, Czeslaw Mesjasz, John Grin, Pál Dunay, Navnita Chadha Behera, Béchir Chourou, Patricia Kameri-Mbote, P. H. Liotta (eds., 2008). Globalization and Environmental Challenges. Reconceptualizing Security in the 21st Century. Heidelberg etc.: Springer. Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace (H.G. Brauch, ed.), Vol. 3. XXVIII + 1148 pp Breitmeier, H., Levy, M.A., Young, O.R., Zürn, M. (1996) The International Regimes Database as a Tool for the Study of International Cooperation. Working Paper WP-96-160, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Brink, M van de & Meijerink S. 2006. De spagaat van Verkeer en Waterstaat: het project Ruimte voor de Rivier. In: Stedebouw & ruimtelijke ordening, 87 (2): 22-25. Brooks, N., Adger, W.N., Kelly, M.P. (2005) The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global Environmental Change 15, 151–163. Brugnach, M., Dewulf, A., Pahl-Wostl, C., Taillieu, T. (2008) Towards a relational concept of uncertainty: about knowing too little, knowing too differently, and accepting not to know. Ecology and Society 13(2): 30. [online] Brunner, R.D., T.A. Steelman, L. Coe-Juell, C.M. Cromley, C.M. Edwards, D.W. Tucker (2005) Adaptive governance: integrating science, policy, and decision making, Columbia University Press, New York. Burt, G. (2007) Why are we surprised at surprises? Integrating disruption theory and system analysis with the scenario methodology to help identify disruptions and discontinuities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74:731-749. Burton, I., Dickinson, T., Howard, Y. (2007) Upscaling adaptation studies to inform policy at the global level. Paper for the joint TIAS-GWSP workshop on ‘Global assessments: bridging scales and linking to policy’, Adelphi, USA, 10-11 May 2007 Buskens, Gronheid en Otten (2008) Partiële herziening IJsseldelta-Zuid voor de integrale gebiedsontwikkeling. Streekplan Overijssel 2000+. Project Ijsseldelta Zuid, Oktober 2008
308
Camkin, J. (2008) Water in the southwest: Reflections and comparisons with world water challenges. Critical Horizons Seminar: Water – Defining the limits of our future. Bunbury, Western Australia, 24 July 2008 Campolongo, F., A. Saltelli, T. Sorensen and S. Tarantola (2000) Hitchhiker’s Guide to Sensitivity Analysis. In Sensitivity Analysis, Edited by A. Saltelli, K. Chan and E.M.Scott. Willey Series in probability and statistics, pp 15-47. Carlson, J. M., Doyle, J. (2002) Complexity and Robustness. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 99, suppl. 1: 2538-45. Carpenter, S.R., Gunderson, L.H.. (2001) Coping with collapse: ecological and social dynamics in ecosystem management. Bio-Science 6:451–57 Carr, E. (2008) Between structure and agency: Livelihoods and adaptation in Ghana’s Central Region. Global Environmental Change 18 (2008) 689-699. Carruthers, I., and R. Stoner (1981) Economic aspects and policy issues in groundwater development. World Bank staff working paper No. 496, Washington D.C. Cash, D.W., Adger, W.N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Pritchard, L., Young, O. (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology & Society 11, 8. Casti, J. (1997) Would-be Worlds: How Simulation Is Changing the Frontiers of Science, John Wiley, New York NY, 1997 Castles, F.G. (1990) 'The dynamics of policy change: What happened to the Englishspeaking nations in the 1980s,' European Journal of Political Research 18:491-513. Chadna, Navnita (1993) “Confidence Building Measures: A Theoretical Framework,” in International Relations and Pan-Europe Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Findings, Hamberg/Munster-Lit-Verlag, 1993 Chadna, Navnita (1995) “Enemy Images: Media and Indo-Pakistani Tensions,” in Michael Krepon and Amit Sevak, eds., India and Pakistan: Crisis-Prevention, Confidence Building and Reconciliation, New York: St. Martin Press, 1995. Chapman, Jake (2002) System Failure. Why governments must learn to think differently, DEMOS, London. Choe, O.S. (2004) Appurtenancy Reconceptualized: Managing water in an era of scarcity. Yale Law Journal 113 (June): 1909-53 Cilliers, P. (1998) Complexity & Postmodernism. London: Routledge. Cockerill, K., Passell, H.D., Tidwell, V.C. (2006) Cooperative modeling: building bridges between science and the public. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 42(2): 457-471. Cockerill, K., Tidwell, V.C., Passell, H.D., Malczynski, L.A. (2007) Cooperative Modeling Lessons for Environmental Management. Environmental Practice 9(1): 28-41. 309
Committee on Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research (1999) Adaptive Management of Glen Canyon Dam and the Colorado River Ecosystem Report of National Research Council. Washington, D.C. web access; http://www.nap.edu/boos/0309065798/html/R1.html Compston, H., Madsen, P.K. (2001) Conceptual Innovation and Public Policy: Unemployment and Paid Leave Schemes in Denmark. Journal of European Social Policy 11 (2): 117–32. Costanza, R., Ruth, M. (1998) Using Dynamic Modeling to Scope Environmental Problems and Build Consensus. Environmental Management 22(2): 183-195. Conklin, J. (2005) Wicked Problems and Social Complexity: http://cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf; 25 January 2005. Costanza, R., Sklar, F.H. and White, M.L. (1990) Modeling Coastal Landscape Dynamics. BioScience 40(2):91-107. Craps, M. editor (2003) Social Learning in River Basin Management. Report of workpackage 2 of the HarmoniCOP project (www.harmonicop.info), 2003 Cundill, G.N.R., Fabricius, C., Marti, N. (2005) Foghorns to the Future: Using Knowledge and Transdisciplinarity to Navigate Complex Systems, Ecology and Society 10(2): 8, URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art8/ Curtis, C., and Punter, J. (2004) Design-Led Sustainable Development: The Liveable Neighbourhoods Experiment in Perth, Western Australia. The Town Planning Review, Vol. 75, No. 1 (2004), pp. 31-65 (article consists of 35 pages). Published by: Liverpool University Press Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Western Cape (2008) A climate change strategy and action plan for the Western Cape. Available at www.capegateway.gov.za/eadp Delaney, D., Leitner, H. (1997) The Political Construction of Scale. Political Geography 16 (2): 93-97. Della-Marta, P.M., Luterbacher, J., Weissenfluh, H. von, Xoplaki, E., Brunet, M., Wanner, H. (2007) Summer heat waves over western Europe 1880–2003, their relationship to large-scale forcings and predictability, Clim Dyn (2007) 29:251–275 Dewulf, A., G. François, C. Pahl-Wostl, and T. Taillieu. (2007). A framing approach to cross-disciplinary research collaboration: experiences from a large-scale research project on adaptive water management. Ecology and Society, 12(2): 14. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art14/ Dewulf, A., François, G., Brugnach, M., Isendahl, N., Taillieu, T., Pahl-Wostl, C., Moellenkamp, S. (2008) The role of uncertainty, ambiguity and framing in transition to adaptive management. About knowing too little, accepting not to know and knowing too differently. Deliverable of the EU 6th FP NeWater project (www.newater.info). Dick, B., Stringer, E., and Huxham, C. (2009) Theory in action research, Action Research 2009; 7; 5
310
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., Stern, P.C. (2003) The Struggle to Govern the Commons, Science, Vol. 302, 12 December 2003, pp. 1907-1912 Dore, J. (2007) Multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPS): unfulfilled potential. Pages 197-226 in L. Lebel, J. Dore, R. Daniel, and Y. Koma, editors. Democratizing water governance in the Mekong region. Mekong Press, Chiang Mai. Dovers, S., (2000) On the contribution of environmental history to current debate and policy. Environment and History 6, 131–150. Dovers, S. (2009) Normalizing adaptation (Editorial). Global Environmental Change 19 (2009) 4–6 Doyle, A. (2009) “Africa says poor need billions to fight climate fight.” Reuters. April 20. http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/ idUSTRE53J2RG20090420. Dryzek, J. (2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Duke, C. (2006) Experimental Economics and Water Policy. Plenary paper prepared for presentation at the International Association of Agricultural Economists Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, August 12 -18, 2006. Duke, C., Gangadharan.L. and Cason.T.N. (2006) Test bed experiment for water and salinity rights trading in the Murray Darling Basin, In Experimental Methods and Environmental Policy, (eds.) Cherry, Kroll and Shogren. Routledge, 2006. http://www.business.appstate.edu/departments/economics/book.htm Dunsire, A. (1986) A cybernetic view of guidance, control and evaluation in the public sector, In: F.X. Kaufmann, G. Majone, V. Ostrom and W. Wirth (eds), Guidance, control and evaluation in the public sector. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Easton, D. (1953) The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. 1953: Alfred A. Knopf, N.Y; 2nd ed. 1971, 1981 EDIA (2008): EDIA’s website, http://www.edia.pt. Elster, J. (ed.) (1998) Deliberative Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. EM-DAT (2008), The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database – www.emdat.net – Université Catholique de Louvain – Brussels – Belgium Engle, N., Lemos, M.C. (2009) Unpacking governance: Building adaptive capacity to climate change of river basins in Brazil. Global Environmental Change xxx (2009) xxx–xxx Epstein, P.R (2006): Climate Change Futures: Health, Ecological and Economic Dimensions. The Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School. European Commission (2007) 'Towards Sustainable Water Management in the European Union', First stage in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC, Brussels, 22.3.2007
311
European Environment Agency (2007) 'Climate change and water adaptation issues', EEA Technical report No 2/2007 European Commission (2009) White Paper on Adapting to climate change: Towards a European Framework for Action. Brussels, COM(2009) 147 final Evans, P. (2004) Development as institutional change: the pitfalls of monocropping and the potentials of deliberation. Stud Comp Int Dev 2004;38(4):30–52. Evans, P. (2005) The challenges of the ‘institutional turn’: interdisciplinary opportunities in development theory. In: Nee V, Swedberg R, editors. Sociology of capitalist institutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2005. p. 90–116. Exter, K. den (2004) Integrating environmental science and management: the role of system dynamics modelling, PhD thesis, Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW. Fals-Borda, O and Rahman, M A (eds) (1991) Action and Knowledge. Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action Research, Intermediate Technology Publications, London FAO (2007) Adaptation to climate change in agriculture, forestry and fisheries – Perspective, framework and priorities. Interdepartmental Working group on Climate Change, Food and Agricultural Organization, 2007. Fischer, F. (1995) Evaluating public policy. Chicago: Nelson Hall. Fischer, F. (2002) Collaborative knowledge construction – theoretical and methodological aspects. Psychologische Rundschau, 53(3): 119-134 Folke, C., J. Colding, and F. Berkes (2003) Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity in social– ecological systems. Pages 352–387 in F. Berkes, J. Colding, and C. Folke editors. Navigating social– ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Folke, C. (2004) Traditional knowledge in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(3): 7. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art7 Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., and Norberg, J. (2005) Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 30, 8.1-8.33. Foran, T., and L. Lebel (2007) Informed and fair? Water and trade futures in the border regions of mainland southeast Asia. USER Working Paper WP-2007-02. Unit for Social and Environmental Research, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai. Online: http://www.mpowernet.org/download_pubdoc.php?doc=3730 Ford, J.D., Smit, B., Wandel, J. (2006) Vulnerability to climate change in the Arctic: a case study from Arctic Bay, Canada. Global Environmental Change 16, 145–160.
312
Fowler, H.J., Blenkinsop, S., Tebaldi, C. (2007) Linking climate change modelling to impacts studies: recent advances in downscaling techniques for hydrological modeling, International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 27, Issue 12, pages 1547-78 Frank, K.A., Mueller, K., Ann Krause, Taylor, W., Leonard, N. (2007) In: Taylor, W.W., Schechter, M.G., Wolfson, L.G. (Eds.), Globalization: Effects on Fisheries Resources. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 385–423. Franks, T. and Cleaver, F. (2007) Water governance and poverty: A framework for analysis. Progress in Development Studies 7(4): 291‐306. Friend, R., R. Arthur, and M. Keskinen (2009) Songs of the Doomed: The continuing neglect of capture fisheries in hydropower development in the Mekong. in F. Molle, T. Foran, and M. Käkönen, editors. Contested Waterscapes in the Mekong Region: Hydropower, Livelihoods and Governance. Earthscan, London. Fung, A. and E.O. Wright (2003), ‘Countervailing power in empowered participatory governance’, in A. Fung and E.O. Wright (eds), Deepening Democracy, New York: Verso, pp. 259–290. Geels, F., Elzen, B, Green, K. (2004) General introduction: Systems innovation and transitions to sustainability, in Elzen, B., Geels, F., Green, K (eds.), Sytems innovation and the transition to sustainability: Theory, evidence and policy. (Cheltenham, Edawrd Elgar) p. 1-16. Geldof, G.D. (1995) Adaptive Water Management – Integrated Water Management on the Edge of Chaos. Water Science and Technology, 32(1): 7-13 Gibbons, M.N. (2001) The potential of transdisciplinarity. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel. Giddens, A. (1984) The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. (Cambridge: Polity Press). Giddens, A. (1986) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, University of California Press; Reprint edition (January 1, 1986) ISBN 0-520-05728-7 Gilmore, T., Krantz, J., Ramirez, R. (1986) Action Based Modes of Inquiry and the Host-Researcher Relationship, Consultation 5.3 (Fall 1986). Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (2008) Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction into the Fight Against Poverty, Annual Report, 2008. Global Water Partnership (2003) Effective WaterGovernance: Learning from the Dialogues. GWP Secretariat. Stockholm, Sweden. Goodess C.M., Hall, J., Best, M., Betts, R., Cabantous, L., Jones, P.D., Kilsby, C.G., Pearman, A., Wallace, C.J. (2007) Climate Scenarios and Decision Making under Uncertainty. Climate Change and Cities. Volume 33, Issue 1, pages 10-30, March 2007
313
Goodess, C. M. et al. (2007) An intercomparison of statistical downscaling methods for Europe and European regions—assessing their performance with respect to extreme weather events and the implications for climate change applications. Clim. Change. Goodin, R.E. and C. Tilly (eds) (2006), Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Green, C.H., Tunstall, S.M., Fordham, M.H. (2007) The Risks from Flooding: Which Risks and Whose Perception? Disasters, 2007, Volume 15 Issue 3, Pages 227 - 236 Grin, J., Felix, F., Bos, B., Spoelstra, S. (2004). ‘Practices for reflexive design: lessons from a Dutch programme on sustainable agriculture.’ Int. J. Foresight and Innovation Policy, vol. 1, no. 1-2, p. 146-169 Grin, J. (2006) Reflexive modernization as a governance issue - or: designing and shaping Restructuration, p. 54-81 in: Voß, Jan-Peter; Bauknecht, Dierk; Kemp, René (eds.), Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Cheltenham : Edward Elgar Grin, J., Loeber, A. (2007) ‘Theories of Policy Learning: Agency, Structure and Change’, chapter 15 (p. 201219) in: Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller, Mara S. Sidney (eds.), Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Theory, Politics, and Methods . CRC Press–Taylor & Francis Group. Grin, J. (2008), ‘The Multi-Level Perspective and the design of system innovations’, chapter 3 (p. 47-80) in: J.C.J.M. van den Bergh & F. Bruinsma (eds. in association with R. Vreeker & A. Idenburg), Managing the transition to renewable energy: theory and macro-regional practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Grin, J. (2010) ‘Understanding Transitions from a Governance Perspective, part III (p. 223-319) in: Grin, J., Rotmans, J., Schot, J. (in collaboration with F. Geels and D. Loorbach), Transitions to Sustainable Development – New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change. Routledge, 2010 Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. and Light, S.S., eds (1995): Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions New York: Columbia University Press. Gunderson, L. (1999) Resilience, flexibility and adaptive management: antidotes for spurious certitude? Conserv. Ecol. 3: 7. http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss1/art 7 Gunderson, L. H. and Holling, C.S. (eds.) (2002) Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Gupta, J., C. Termeer, J. Klostermann, S. Meijerink, M. van den Brink, P. Jong, S. Nooteboom, E. Bergsma (2010) Assessing the Ability of Dutch Institutions for Stimulating the Adaptive Capacity of Society (Project IC-12). IVM report 2010 GWP-TAC (Global Water Partnership - Technical Advisory Committee) (2000): Integrated Water Resources Management. TAC Background Papers No. 4. (GWP, Stockholm, Sweden)
314
Haas P.M. (1992) Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. Int. Organ. 46(1):1–35 Haas, P.M. (1994) Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control’, in Friedrich Kratochwil and Edward D. Mansfield (eds), International Organization: A Reader (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), pp. 128–39. Haase, D., Huntjens, P. Schlueter, M., Hirsch, D., Kranz, N. (forthcoming, 2010) Enhancing participation using mental mapping and causality models in the Tisza, Orange and AmuDarya river basin. Ecology and Society, in press. Habermas, J. (1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory, London: Polity Press. Hahn, T., P. Olsson, C. Folke, & K. Johansson (2006). Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: the role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Human Ecology, 34(4), 573-592. Haines, A., Kovats, R. S., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Corvalan, C. (2006) Climate Change and Human Health: Impacts, Vulnerability, and Mitigation. The Lancet, 367(9528): 2101–2109, 2006 Hall, Peter A. (1988) 'Policy paradigms, social learning and the state,' a paper presented to the International Political Science Association, Washington, D.C. Hall, P. and R. Taylor (1996) ‘Political science and the three new institutionalisms’, Political Studies 44(5): 952–973. Hallegatte, S. (2009) Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global Environmental Change 19:240-247. Hanaki, N., Peterhansl, A., Dodds, P.S., Watts, D.J., (2007) Cooperation in evolving social networks. Management Science 53, 1036–1050. Hanks, C.A. (2006) Community Empowerment: A Partnership Approach to Public Health Program Implementation. Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice, Vol. 7, No. 4, 297-306 (2006) Hare, M.P., Barreteau, O., Beck, M.B. (2006) Methods for stakeholder participation in water management. In Giupponi, C., Jakeman, A.J., Karssenberg, D. and Hare, M.P. (Eds) Sustainable Management of Water Resources: An integrated approach. Hargrove, R. (2002) Masterful Coaching. Revised Edition. Harrison, N.E. ed., (2006) Complexity in World Politics: Concepts and Methods of a New Paradigm. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hart, A. (1986) Knowledge acquisition for exert systems. Kogan Page, London. Hartvigsen, G, A. Kinzig, and G. Peterson (1998) Use and Analysis of Complex Adaptive Systems in Ecosystem Science: Overview of Special Section,. Ecosystems, 1, 427-430, 1998.
315
Hauck, E.J., Yuen, K., Hudson and I. Loh (2007) Challenges for Water Resources in the Changing South West Australia Climate. Third International Climate & Water Conference, Helsinki, Finland Haug, C., Rayner, T., Jordan, A., Hildingsson, R., Stripple, J., Monni, S., Huitema, D., Massey, E., Van Asselt, H., Berkhout, F. (2009) Navigating the dilemmas of climate policy in Europe: evidence from policy evaluation studies. Climatic Change. ISSN0165-0009 (Print) 1573-1480 (Online). Hay, C (2006) "Constructivist institutionalism". in Rhodes, R.A.W.; Binder, Sarah A.; Rockman, Bert A.. The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 56–74. ISBN 0199548463. Hayek, F.A. (1978) The constitution of liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1978. Healey, P. (1997) Collaborative planning. Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. Houndsmil & New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Healey, P., Magalhaes, C., Madanipour, A., Pendlebury, J. (2003). ‘Place, identity and local politics: analyzing initiatives in deliberative governance’, in: Maarten Hajer & Henk Wagenaar (red.), Deliberative policy analysis: understanding governance in the network society, 60-88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heilmann, S. (2008) Policy Experimentation in China’s Economic Rise. St Comp Int Dev (2008) 43:1–26 Hemingway, C.J. (1998) Socio-cognitive research: toward a socio-cognitive theory of information systems: an analysis of key philosophical and conceptual issues. In the workshop Proceedings of Information Systems: Current Issues and Future Changes Hemmati, M. (2002) The World Commission on Dams as a multi-stakeholder process. Politics and the Life Sciences 21. Hendriks, Carolyn M. & John Grin, (2007) ‘Contextualising Reflexive Governance: The politics of Dutch transitions to sustainability’, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, vol. 9 (2007) nos 3-4, p. 1-17. Hinkel, J. (2008) Transdisciplinary Knowledge Integration – Cases from Integrated Assessment and Vulnerability Assessment. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands Hisdal, H., K. Stahl, L. M. Tallaksen, and S. Demuth (2001) Have Streamfow Droughts in Europe Become More Severe or Frequent? International Journal of Climatology 21 (1): 317-33.
Hisschemöller, M. (2005) Participation as knowledge production and the limits of democracy. Pages 189208 in Maasen, S., Weingart, P. (eds.), Democratisation of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making. Springer, Dordrecht Hodgson, A M. (1992) Hexagons for systems thinking. European Journal of Operational Research 59:220230. Hogwood, B.W., Peters, B.G. (1983) Policy Dynamics. Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books. Hollander A.E.M. de., Hanemaaijer A.H. (eds.). (2003) Nuchter omgaan met risico’s. (MNP-RIVM). Bilthoven: RIVM Rapport 2517047/2004 316
Holling, C.S. (1978) Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. London: London Holling, C.S., Meffe, G.K. (1996) Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv. Biol. 10:328–37 Hooghe, L., Marks, G. (2003) Unraveling the Central State, but how? Types of Multi-level Governance, American Political Science Review, Vol. 97, No. 2, May 2003 Huitema, D., Meijerink, S. (2007) Understanding and managing water transitions: a policy science perspective. Paper presented to the Amsterdam Conference on Earth System Governance, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 24-26 May 2007 Huitema, D., E. Mostert, W. Egas, S. Moellenkamp, C. Pahl-Wostl, and R. Yalcin. (2009) Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecology and Society 14(1): 26. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art26/ Huitema, D., & Meijerink, S. (Eds.) (2009) Water policy entrepreneurs. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Huitema, D., M. van de Kerkhof, L. Bos-Gorter, and E. Ovaa (2009) Public participation in water management. An analysis of innovative approaches from the Netherlands. Pages 225-248 in H. a. S. R. Folmer, editor. Water Problems and Policies in The Netherlands. Resources for the Future Press, Washington D.C. Human Impact Report (2009) Climate Change — The Anatomy of a Silent Crisis. Published by the Global Humanitarian Forum, Geneva, 2009 Huntjens, P. (2004) Friction between Environmental Impacts Assessments (EIAs) and Cost-Benefit Analyses in Dutch Water Management – Case-study PKB Ruimte voor de Rivier. National Institute of Water Management and Sewerage Treatment (RIZA) - Policy document, Lelystad, 2002 Huntjens, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., Grin, J. (2007) Formal Comparative Analysis of Adaptive Capacity of Water Management Regimes in Four European Sub Basins, Deliverable 1.7.9a of the NeWater project, Institute of Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabruck Huntjens, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., Rihoux, B., Flachner, Z., Neto, S., Koskova, R., Schlueter, M., Nabide Kiti, I., Dickens, C. (2008) The role of adaptive and integrated water management (AIWM) in developing climate change adaptation strategies for dealing with floods and droughts - A formal comparative analysis of eight water management regimes in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Deliverable 1.7.9b of the NeWater project, Institute of Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabruck, Germany Huntjens, P., Aekeraj, S., Henocque, Y. (2007, updated 2009) The ASEM Waternet Scorecard – A methodology for assessing the state-of-the-art of Adaptive and Integrated Water Management Programs/Project. ASEMWaternet Report, www.asemwaternet.org Huntjens, P., Sombardier, A., Freissinet, C., Aekeraj, S., Duarte, J. (2009b) Obstacles and opportunities for stakeholder participation in water management decision making – Experiences from France, Portugal and Thailand. ASEM Waternet joint working paper. 317
Huntjens, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., Schulze, R., Kranz, N., Camkin, J. (2009c) Comparison of the processes for developing Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in the Netherlands, South Africa, and Australia. Paper presented at the IARU International Scientific Congress on Climate Change (March 2009, Copenhagen), as a run-up to the United Nations Conference of Parties on Climate Change 2009 (COP15). Huntjens, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., Grin, J. (2010) Climate change adaptation in European river basins. In: Regional Environmental Change, 2010 Hwang, A. (2000) Toward Fostering Systems Learning in Organizational Contexts, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2000 ICRA, International Centre for development oriented Research in Agriculture (2004), The ARD Learning Cycle, http://www.icra-edu.org Imperial, M.T. (1999) Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: the institutional analysis and development framework. Environ. Manag. 24:449–65 IFRC (2008) World Disasters Report 2007 - tackling discrimination in disasters, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 12 December 2007 Imperial, M.T. (1999) Institutional analysis and ecosystem-based management: the institutional analysis and development framework. Environ. Manag. 24:449–65 International Alliance of Research Universities (IARU, 2009) Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges and Decisions. Synthesis report of the IARU International scientific congress on climate change which was held in Copenhagen from 10-12 March 2009. University of Copenhagen, Second Edition, 2009. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2001) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerabil- ity Contribution of the Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. J. J. McCarthy, O. F. Canziani, N. A. Leary, D. J. Dokken, and K. S. White. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Summary for Policymakers. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Irwin, A. (1995) Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development, Routledge, London Isendahl, N., Dewulf, A., Brugnach, M., François, G., Möllenkamp, S., and C. Pahl-Wostl (2009) Assessing Framing of Uncertainties in Water Management Practice. Water Resources Management, Volume 23, Number 15 / December, 2009 Isendahl, N., Pahl-Wostl, C., Dewulf, A. (2010) Using framing parameters to improve handling of uncertainties in water management practice. Environmental Policy and Governance, Volume 20 Issue 2, Pages 107 - 122
318
IUCN, TEI, IWMI, and M-POWER (2007a) Exploring water futures together: Mekong Region Waters Dialogue. Report from regional Dialogue, Vientiane, Lao PDR. World Conservation Union, Thailand Environment Institute, International Water Management Institute, Mekong Program on Water, Environment & Resilience. Available on-line: http://www.mpowernet.org/download_pubdoc.php?doc=3274 IUCN, TEI, IWMI, and M-POWER (2007b) Exploring water futures together: Mekong Region Waters Dialogue. Resource papers from regional Dialogue, Vientiane, Lao PDR. World Conservation Union, Thailand Environment Institute, International Water Management Institute, Mekong Program on Water, Environment & Resilience. Available on-line: http://www.mpowernet.org/download_pubdoc.php?doc=4059. Jaeger, C. (2003) A note on domains of discourse – logical know-how for integrated environmental modeling. PIK Report 86, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany Janssen, M.A., Ostrom, E. (Eds.), 2006. Resilience, vulnerability, and adaptation: a cross-cutting theme of the international human dimensions programme on global environmental change. Global Environmental Change 16 (3) 235–316. Jeffrey, P. and Gearey, M. (2005): Integrated Water Resources Management: Lost on the road from ambition to realisation?, Prepared for the WATERMATEX conference, November 2004 in Beijing Jolánkai, G. (2005) The Tisza River Project Real-life scale integrated catchment models for supporting water- and environmental management decisions. (Contract No: EVK1-CT-2001-00099). Final report of the project for the overall duration: 01 January 2002 – 31 December 2004. SECTION 6 report Jones, R.N., Chiew, F.H.S., Boughton, W.B., Zhang, L. (2006) Estimating the sensitivity of mean annual runoff to climate change using selected hydrological models, Advances in Water Resources, 29, 14191429. Jonker, L. (2002) Integrated water resources management: theory, practice, cases. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 27, pp. 719-720. Jordan, A. (2000) The politics of multilevel environmental governance: subsidiarity and environmental policy in the European Union. Environment and Planning A 32: 1307-1324. Jordan A, Wurzel R.K.W., Zito A.R. (eds) (2003) ‘New’ instruments of environmental governance? Cass, London Jordan, A. (2009) Revisiting ... The governance of sustainable development: taking stock and looking forwards. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2009, volume 27, pages 762 ^ 765 Jupille, J. & Caporaso, J. (1998), States, Agency, and Rules – The European Union in Global Environmental Politics, In: Rhodes, C (ed): The European Union in World Community, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 213229 Kahane, A. (2004) Solving Tough Problems: An Open Way of Talking, Listening, and Creating New Realities. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 2004. 319
Kalibo, H.W., & K.E. Medley (2007). Participatory resource mapping for adaptive collaborative management at Mt. Kasigau, Kenya. Landscape and Urban Planning, 82(3), 145-158. Kalkstein, L.S., (1993) Health and climate change - direct impacts in cities. Lancet, 342, 1397-1399. Kallis, G., Kiparsky, M., Norgaard, R. (2009) Collaborative governance and adaptive management: Lessons from California’s CALFED Water Program. Environmental Science & Policy, 12 (2009) Kashyap, A. (2004) Water governance: learning by developing adaptive capacity to incorporate climate variability and change. Water Science and Technology Vol 49 No 7 pp 141–146 © IWA Publishing 2004 Kauffman, S. (1995) At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity, Oxford University Press, New York NY, 1995. Keeney, R. L., McDaniels, T.L. (2001). A framework to guide thinking and analysis regarding climate change policies. Risk Analysis, Vol. 21(6), pp. 989–1000. Kemp, R., Weehuizen, R. (2005) Policy learning, what does it mean and how can we study it? Publin Report No. D15, Published by NIFU STEP, Oslo 2005. Kerr, J. (2007) Watershed Management: Lessons from Common Property Theory. International Journal of the Commons, Vol 1, no 1 October 2007, pp. 89-109 Kettl, D.F. (2000) ‘The transformation of governance: globalization, devolution, and the role of government.’ Public Adm. Rev. 60:488–97 Kingdon, J. W. (1995) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Harper Collins, New York, New York, USA. Kitcher, P. (1999) Unification as a regulative ideal. Perspectives on Science 7 (3), 337-348 Klein, J.T. (1990) Interdisciplinarity. Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI. KNMI (2006) Climate Change Scenarios 2006 for the Netherlands. KNMI Scientific Report WR 2006-01 Knoesen, D., Schulze, R., Pringle, C., Summerton, M., Dickens, C. and Kunz, R. (2009) Water for the Future: Impacts of climate change on water resources in the Orange-Senqu River basin. Report to NeWater, a project funded under the Sixth Research Framework of the European Union. Institute of Natural Resources, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. Kok, M.T., & H.C. de Coninck (2007) Widening the scope of policies to address climate change: directions for mainstreaming. Environmental Sience and Policy, 10(7-8), 587-599. Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experimental learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs Komiyama, H., Takeuchi, K. (2006) Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustainability Science 1 (1), 1-6
320
Kortsen, A., Goede, P. de (eds) (2006) Bouwen aan vertrouwen in het openbaar bestuur - Diagnoses en remedies. 2006 Elsevier Overheid, ’s-Gravenhage Krasner, S. (1983) Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening variables. In: S. Krasner (ed.), International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983), p. 1. Krysanova, V., H. Buiteveld, D. Haase, F. Hattermann, K. van Niekerk K. Roest, P.M. Santos, and M. Schlüter (2008) Practices and lessons learned in coping with climatic hazards (floods and droughts) at river basin scale. Ecology and Society, in press. Krysanova, V., Dickens, C., Timmerman, J., Varela-Ortega, C., Schlüter, M., Roest, K., Huntjens, P., Jaspers, F., Buiteveld, H., Moreno, E., Pedraza C., J., Slámová, R., Martínková, M., Blanco, I., Esteve, P., Pringle, K., Pahl-Wostl, C., Kabat, P. (2010) Cross-Comparison of Climate Change Adaptation Strategies Across Large River Basins in Europe, Africa and Asia. Water Resources Management, Volume 24, Number 14, November 2010 , pp. 4121-4160(40) Kübler, D. (1999) Ideas as Catalytic Elements for Policy Change: Advocacy Coalitions and Drug Policy in Switzerland. In Public Policy and Political Ideas, ed. Dietmar Braun and Andreas Busch. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 116–35.
Kuper, M., Dionnet, M., Hammani, A., Bekkar, Y., Garin, P., Bluemling, B. (2009) Supporting the Shift from State Water to Community Water: Lessons from a Social Learning Approach to Designing Joint Irrigation Projects in Morocco. Ecology and Society 14(1): 19. Lamy, S.L. (2005), Contemporary mainstream approaches: neo-realism and neoliberalism, Chapter 9, p. 215. In: John Baylis and Steve Smith, The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 3rd edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) Lankford, B.A. and J. Cour (2005) From Integrated to Adaptive: A New Framework for Water Resources Management of River Basins' in the roceedings of the East Africa River Basin Management Conference,Morogoro, Tanzania, 7-9 March 2005 Lankford, B.A. and Hepworth, N. (2006) The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Centralised versus Decentralised River Basin Management. Workshop 4: “Benefits and Responsibilities of Decentralised and Centralised Approaches for Management of Water and Wastewater”. World Water Week 2006. Stockholm International Water Institute. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge , UK : Cambridge University Press. First published in 1990 as Institute for Research on Learning report 90-0013 Leach W.D., Pelkey, N.W. (2001) Making watershed partnerships work: a review of the empirical literature. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 127:378–85 Lebel, L., J. M. Anderies, B. Campbell, C. Folke, S. Hatfield-Dodds, T. Hughes, and J. Wilson (2006) Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 11(11):19. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss11/art19/.
321
Lebel, L., and B. T. Sinh. (2007) Politics of floods and disasters. Pages 37-54 in L. Lebel, J. Dore, R. Daniel, and Y. S. Koma, editors. Democratizing water governance in the Mekong region. Mekong Press, Chiang Mai. Lebel, L., and B. Sinh. (2009) Risk reduction or redistribution? Flood management in the Mekong region. Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management 1:23-39. Lebel, L., Foran, T., Garden, P, and Manuta, J.B. (2009) Adaptation to Climate Change and Social Justice: Challenges for Flood and Disaster Management in Thailand. Pages 125-141 in F. Ludwig, P. Kabat, H. van Schaik, and M. van der Valk, editors. Climate change adaptation in the water sector. Earthscan, London. Lebel, L., Huntjens, P., Neto, S., Camkin, J. (2009) Critical reflections on multi-stakeholder dialogues on water: experiences in Asia and Europe. Paper presented at the International Conference on Water Resources Management in Europe and Asia – ASEMWaternet, 17-19 November 2009, Changsha, China. Lebel, L., C. T. A. Chen, A. Snidvongs, and R. Daniel, editors. (2009) Critical states: Environmental challenges to development in Monsoon Asia. SIRD/Gerakbudaya, Selangor, Malaysia. Le Blanc, D. (2007) A Framework for Analyzing Tariffs and Subsidies in Water Provision to Urban Households in Developing Countries. Division for Sustainable Development, United Nations, February, 2007 Lee, K.N. (1999) Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology, 3(2):3. Leeuwis, C., and R. Pyburn, editors. (2002) Wheelbarrows Full of Frogs. Koninklijke Van Gorcum Leicester, G. (2007) Policy Learning: can Government discover the treasure within? European Journal of Education, Volume 42 Issue 2, Pages 173 – 184. Published Online: 23 May 2007. Lemos, M.C., & A. Agrawal (2006). Environmental Governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources., 31, 297. Leon, P. de, (1998) Models of Policy Discourse: insights versus Prediction Policy Studies Journal 26 (1), 147–161. Levi‐Strauss, C. (1968) Das wilde denken. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Levy, P. (2003) A methodological framework for practice-based research in networked learning, Instructional Science 31: 87–109, 2003. Lidskog, R. and Sundqvist, G. (2002) The Role of Science in Environmental Regimes: The Case of LRTAP. European Journal of International Relations, March 2002, vol. 8, no. 1, 77-101 Light, S., Blann, K. (2000) "Adaptive Management and the Kissimmee River Restoration Project" Collaborative Adaptive Management Network, Accession Date: 20 April 2004: Website address: http://www.iatp.org/AEAM/ Lijklema, S. (2001) Water beheren en communiceren. Een studie naar het publieke draagvlak voor het waterbeheer in Nederland. Proefschrift. Wageningen: Wageningen Universiteit. 322
LIRR (2003) Meer waarden met een robuuste rivierruimte – Veiligheid, ruimtelijke kwaliteit en sociaaleconomische vitaliteit. Landelijke Initiatiefgroep Ruimte voor de Rivier (LIRR), September 2003. List, M. and Rittberger, V. (1992) Regime theory and international environmental management, in A. Hurrel and B. Kingsbury (eds), The International Politics of the Environment (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), pp. 85–109. Loeber, A., van Mierlo, B., Grin, J., Leeuwis, C. (2007). ‘The Practical Value of Theory: Conceptualizing learning in pursuit of sustainable development’, chapter 3 (p. 83-97) in Arjen Wals & Tore van der Ley (eds.), Social Learning towards a sustainable world. Wageningen: Wageningen UP. Ludwig, D., Mangel, M., Haddad, B. (2001) Ecology, conservation, and public policy. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32:481–517 Luyt, D. (2008) Governance, Accountability and Poverty Alleviation in South Africa. Paper delivered at the United Nations Social Forum on 2 September 2008 in Geneva, Switzerland. Public Service Accountability Monitor (PSAM), Centre for Social Accountability, Rhodes University, South Africa MacNamara, M., Meyler, M., and Arnold, A. (1990). Management education and the challenge of Action Learning. High. Educ. 19, 419–433. Mansbridge, J. (1983) Beyond Adversary Democracy, Chicago: Chicago University Press. Manuta, J., S. Khrutmuang, D. Huaisai, and L. Lebel (2006) Institutionalized Incapacities and Practice in Flood Disaster Management in Thailand. Science and Culture 72(1–2): 10–22. March, J.G. and J.P. Olsen (1989), Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics, New York: Free Press. Marsic, V. J., Cederholm, L., Turner, E., and Pearson, T. (1992). Action-reflection learning. Train. Dev. 46, 63–66. Martin, A., Sutherland, A. (2003) Whose Research, Whose Agenda? In: Managing Natural Resources for Sustainable Livelihoods - Uniting Science and Participation, Edited by Barry Pound, Sieglinde Snapp, Cynthia McDougall, and Ann Braun. Earthscan/IDRC 2003 Maurer, M., Bell, E., Woods, E., Allen, E. (2006) Structured Discovery in Cane Travel: Constructivism in Action. Phi Delta Kappan, Dec2006, Vol. 88 Issue 4, p304-307, 4p Mayer, P., Rittberger, V. and Zürn, M. (1993) ‘Regime theory: state of the art and perspectives’, in V. Rittberger (ed.), Regime Theory and International Relations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), pp. 391–430. McGinnis, M. (2000) Polycentric Governance and Development. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. Michigan Press Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report, March 2005 Milligan, J. (2004) Heatwaves: the developed world’s hidden disaster, Techn Ber, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent, World Disasters Report.
323
Mills, E. (2007) Synergisms between climate change mitigation and adaptation: an insurance perspective. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change (2007) 12:809–842 Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken (2006) Rapporten Nationale Veiligheid, Deelrapport Extreme droogte/hitte, Internal Report 16-5-2006, made public by the Law on Access to Public Information on 20 augustus 2007 Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (2006) Waterkoers 2, Directoraat Generaal Water, The Netherlands de
Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat (2008) 11 Voortgangsrapportage Ruimte voor de Rivier, 1 juli 2007 - 31 december 2007. Programmadirectie Ruimte voor de Rivier, 18 maart 2008, www.verkeerenwaterstaat.nl Mitchell, T. and van Aalst, M. (2008): “Convergence of Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation.” DFID. http:// www.research4development.info/PDF/Articles/ Convergence_of_DRR_and_CCA.pdf. Mittelstraβ, J. (2005) Methodische Transdisziplinarität. In: Schmidt, J., Grunwald, A. (Eds.), Methodologische Fragen der Inter- und Transdisziplinarität – Wege zu einer praxisstutzenden Interdisciplinaritatsforschung, Technikfolgenabschatzung: Theorie und Praxis Nr. 2. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Institut fur Technikfolgenabschatzung und Systemanalyse, Karlsruhe, Germany Moench, M., Stapleton, S. (2007) Water, Climate, Risk and Adaptation. Working Paper 2007-01 for the Cooperative Programme on Water and Climate (CPWC). MoEW (Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water) (2005) The Fourth National Communication of the Republic of Hungary on Climate Change, 2005. KvVM, Budapest. Molle, F. (2006) Planning and managing water resources at the river-basin level: Emergence and evolution of a concept. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. 38p. (IWMI Comprehensive Assessment Research Report 16) Mollinga, P. (2001) Water and politics: levels, rational choice and South Indian canal irrigation. Futures, Volume 33, Issues 8-9, October 2001, Pages 733-752 Morgan, G., and Ramirez, R. (1984). Action Learning—a holographic metaphor for guiding social change. Hum. Relat. 37, 1–28. Mostert, E., Beek E. van, Bouman, N.W.M., Hey, E. (1999) River basin management and planning. Pages 24-55 in E. Mostert, editor Proceedings of the International Workshop on River Basin Management (The Hague, the Netherlands, 1999), Technical Documents in Hydrology No. 31, Unesco. MRC. 2005. The MRC Basin Development Plan. Stakeholder Participation. BDP Library Volume 5. Mekong River Commission. MRC. 2008. Stakeholder consultation on MRC's Basin Development Plan Phase 2 (BDP2) and its inception report. Consultation Proceedings. 12-13 March 2008, Vientiane, Lao PDR. Mekong River Commission, Vientiane.
324
Mukand, S.W., Rodrik, D. (2005) In search of the Holy Grail: policy convergence, experimentation, and economic performance. Am Econ Rev 2005;95(1):374–83. Mukheibir, P. (2007) Water resource management strategies for adaptation to climate induced impacts in South Africa. Water Resources Management. Muro, M., Jeffrey, P. (2008) A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resources management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 51(3): 325-344 Myint, T. (2005) Strength of "weak" forces in multilayer environmental governance: cases from the Mekong and Rhine River Basins. Indiana University, Bloomington. 203 pp. Nash, J. (2002) in New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information and Voluntary Measures, T. Dietz, P. C. Stern, Eds. (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2002), pp. 235–252. Neuvel, J.M.M. (2004) Wateroverlast en Watertekort: percepties op risico’s en consequenties voor de ruimtelijke ordening. RIVM rapport 500023002/2004 Nicolson, G.R., Starfield, A.M., Kofinas, G.P., Kruse, J.A. (2002) Ten Heuristics for Interdisciplinary Modeling Projects. Ecosystems 5: 376-384. Nooteboom, S. (2006) Adaptive Networks – The Governance for Sustainable Development, Eburon Academic Publishers, (November, 2006) Delft, The Netherlands Nordblom, Tom, Reeson, Andrew F., Whitten, Stuart, Finlayson, John D., Kelly, Jason A. and Hume, Iain H., (2008), Developing Environmental Service Policy for Salinity and Water: Experiments with Regulations and Markets Linking Watersheds with Downstream Water Users, No 6249, 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society. North, D.C. (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1990. Nullmeier, F. (2006) The cognitive turn in public policy analysis. GFORS WORKING PAPER NO. 4, 2006 Nyberg, B. (1999) An introductory guide to adaptive management for project leaders and participants Oates W.E. (1998) Environmental Policy in the European Community: Harmonization or National Standards? Empirica 25: 1-13. O'Brien, R. (2001) An overview of the methodological approach of action research. In Roberto Richardson (Ed.), Theory and Practice of Action Research. João Pessoa, Brazil: Universidade Federal da Paraíba. OECD (2000) Building Public Trust: Ethics Measures in OECD Countries. OECD Public Management Policy Brief No. 7, September 2000 Olsson, P., C. Folke, and F. Berkes. (2004) Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social– ecological systems. Environmental Management 34:75–90.
325
Olsson, P., L.H. Gunderson, S.R. Carpenter, P. Ryan, L. Lebel, C. Folke, & C.S. Holling (2006) Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1). O'Meagher, B, Du Pisani, L.G., White, D.H. (1998) Evolution of drought policy and related science in Australia and South Africa. Agricultural Systems. 57 (3) 231-258. Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press. (The Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions). Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., Walker, J., Eds. (1994) Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources (Univ. of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1994). Ostrom E. (1996) Crossing the great divide: coproduction, synergy, and development. World Dev. 24(6):1073–87 Ostrom, E. (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity: Princeton University Press, 2005 Ostrom, E. (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond Panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 104: 1518115187. Ostrom, E., Janssen, M.A. & Anderies, J.M. (2007) Going beyond panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 104(39): 15176-15178. Paavola, J. and N. W. Adger (2006) ‘Fair adaptation to climate change’, Ecological Economics, vol 56, pp594–609. Pahl-Wostl, C. (1995) The dynamic nature of ecosystems: Chaos and order entwined. Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1995. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002) Towards sustainability in the water sector – The importance of human actors and processes of social learning. In: Aquat. Sci. 64 (4): 394–411. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002b) Participative and stakeholder based policy design, evaluation and modeling processes. Integrated Assessment, 3:3-14 Pahl-Wostl, C. and M.P. Hare (2004) Processes of Social Learning in Integrated Resources Management. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology. 14: 193–206, 2004. Pahl-Wostl, C., Sendzimir, J. (2005) The relationship between IWRM and Adaptive Water Management, NeWater Working Paper No 3 Pahl-Wostl, C., Downing, T., Kabat, P., Magnuszewski, P., Meigh, J., Schlueter, M., Sendzimir, J., and Werners, S. (2005) Transition to Adaptive Water Management; The NeWater project. Water Policy. NeWater Working Paper X., Institute of Environmental Systems Research, University of Osnabrück. Pahl-Wostl, C., Isendahl, N., Möllenkamp, S., Brugnach, M., Jeffrey, P., Medema, W., Vries, T. de (2006) Paradigms in Water Management, NeWater Deliverable 1.1.2, University of Osnabruck, Germany.
326
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2006b) The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of rivers and floodplains. Ecology and Society 11(5):10 Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007) Transition towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resources Management 21:49-62. Pahl-Wostl, C., J. Sendzimir, P. Jeffrey, J. Aerts, G. Berkamp, and K. Cross (2007a) Managing change toward adaptive water management through social learning. Ecology and Society 12(2): 30. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art30/ Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Tabara, D., and Taillieu, T. (2007b) Social learning and water resources management. Ecology and Society 12:5 Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007c) Transition towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resources Management. 21(1), 49-62. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2008) Requirements for Adaptive Water Management. In: Pahl-Wostl, C., Kabat, P., Moltgen, J. (eds) 2008) Adaptive and Integrated Water Management – Coping with Complexity and Uncertainty. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2008. Pahl-Wostl, C., D. Tabara, R. Bouwen, M. Craps, A. Dewulf, E. Mostert, D. Ridder, and T. Tailleu (2008a) The importance of social learning and culture for sustainable water management. Ecological Economics 64:484-495. Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009) A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change, 2009 Pahl-Wostl, C., Kastens, B. and Lebel, L. [eds] (2009b) Review Report - Different methodological approaches for comparative analyses in water management projects. Twin2Go Deliverable No. 1.1 Pahl-Wostl, C., Huntjens, P. (2010) Future themes in Water Governance. In: Pahl-Wostl, C., Kastens, B., van de Giesen, N. (eds.) (2010) Future themes in water management in the context of global change Short-list and full report. University of Osnabrück & Water Management, Civil Engineering & Geosciences, Technical University Delft Palmer, M. A., C. Liermann, C. Nilsson, M. Florke, J. Alcamo, P. S. Lake, and N. Bond. 2008. Climate change and the world's river basins: anticipating management options. Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 6:81-89. Parson, E.A., R.W. Corell, E.J. Barron, V. Burkett, A. Janetos, L. Joyce, T.R. Karl, M.C. MacCracken, J. Melillo, & M.G. Morgan (2003) Understanding climatic impacts, vulnerabilities, and adaptation in the United States: building a capacity for assessment. Climatic Change, 57(1), 9-42. Pielke, R. A. (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Pierson, P. (2000) Not just what, but when: timing and sequence in political processes. Stud Am Polit Dev 14:72–92 327
Platform for Sustainable Alentejo (2005) “The Alqueva dam - How the EIB helped to finance environmental destruction in Portugal”. Platform for Sustainable Alentejo (CPADA, CEAI, FAPAS, GEOTA, LPN, Quercus, SPEA), in cooperation with Friends of the Earth International and CEE Bankwatch Network Polsby, N.W. (1984) Political Innovation in America: The Politics of Policy Initiation. New Haven: Yale University Press. Raadgever, G.T. and Mostert, E. (2005), Transboundary River Basin Management – State-of-the-art review on transboundary regimes and information management in the context of adaptive management, Deliverable 1.3.1 of the NeWater project, RBA Centre, TU Delft Raadgever, G.T., Mostert, E., Kranz, N, Interwies, E., Timmerman, J.G. (2008) Assessing management regimes in transboundary river basins: do they support adaptive management? Ecology and Society 13(1): 14. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art14/ Ragin, C. (1987) The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Ragin, C. C. (2004) "Qualitative Comparative Analysis Using Fuzzy Sets (fsQCA)." in Benoit Rihoux and Charles Ragin (eds.) Configurational Comparative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA and London: Sage Publications. Ragin, C. (2008) Qualitative Comparative Analysis Using Fuzzy Sets (fsQCA). In Benoit Rihoux and Charles Ragin (eds.) Configurational Comparative Methods. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA and London: Sage Publications. Rahaman, M.M., Varis, O. & Kajander, T. (2004) EU Water Framework Directive vs. Integrated Water Resources Management: The Seven Mismatches. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 20: 565-575. Ramirez-Sanchez, S. (2007) A social Relational Approach to the Conservation and Management of Fisheries: The Rural Communities of the Loreto Bay National Marine Park, BCS, Mexico. School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada. Reed, M.S., (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: A literature review. Biological Conservation 141: 2417-2431. Rescher, N. (1998) Complexity: a philosophical overview. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Reuzel, R., Grin, J. & Akkerman, T. (2007) ‘ Shaping power, trust and deliberation: The role of the evaluator in an interactive evaluation of cochlear implantation’, Int. J. Foresight & Innovation Studies, vol. 3 no. 1,p. 76-94 Revans, R. W. (1980) The nature of Action Learning. Int. J. Manage. Sci. 9, 9–24. Richter, B.D., Mathews, R., Harrison, D.L., & Wigington, R. (2003) Ecologically sustainable water management: Managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecological Applications, 13, 206-224.
328
Rihoux, B., Ragin, C.C. (eds.) 2008. Configurational Comparative Methods.Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA and London: Sage Publications. Rittel, H. & Webber, M. (1973) Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4: 155-169. RIZA, (2007) Aard, ernst en omvang van watertekorten in Nederland, Eindrapport Droogtestudie. RIZArapport 2005.016; ISBN 9036957230 Rogers, P., and A. W. Hall (2003) Effective Water Governance. TEC Background Papers No. 7. Global Water Partnership, Stockholm. Roland, G. (2000) Transition and economics: politics, markets, and firms. Cambridge: MIT; 2000. Röling, N. (2002) Beyond the aggregation of individual preferences: Moving from multiple to distributed cognition in resource dilemmas. In C. Leeuwis and R. Pyburn (2002), Wheelbarrows full of frogs: Social learning in rural resource management. Royal Van Gorcum BV, Assen, The Netherlands, pp. 25-47 Rondinelli et al. (1981). “Government Decentralization in Comparative Perspective: Developing Countries.” International Review of Administrative Science, 47(2). Rondinelli, D., S. Cheema and J.R. Nellis (1983) Decentralization in Developing Countries: A Review of Recent Experience, World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 581, Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Rondinelli, D., J. McCullough and R.W. Johnson (1989) ‘Analysing decentralization policies in developing countries: A political-economy framework’ Development and Change, 20(1), pp. 57–87. Rooy, P. van, Luin, A. van, Dil, E. (2006) Nederland Boven Water – Praktijkboek Gebiedsontwikkeling. Habiforum, Gouda, 2006. Rosenau, J. (2004) Strong Demand, Huge Supply: Governance in an Emerging Epoch. In Multi-level Governance, ed. I. Bache and M. Flinders, 31–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rotmans, J. (2005) Societal Innovation: between dream and reality stands complexity. Inaugural Lecture, Erasmus University, Rotterdam. Rouwette, E.A.J.A., Vennix, J.A.M. and Thijssen, C.M. (2000) Group model building: a decision room approach. Simulation and Gaming 31(3):359-379. Rowe, G., and L. J. Frewer (2000) Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values 25:3-29. Rowe, G., and L. J. Frewer (2005) A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology & Human Values 30:251-290. Ruggie, J.G. (1998) Constructing the world polity. Essays on international institutionalisation (London: Routledge). Ruggie, J.G. (2002) The theory and practice of learning networks. Corporate Social Repsonsibility and the global impact. In JCC (5). Greenleaf Publishing.
329
Ruitenbeek, H.J., & C.M. Cartier (2001). The invisible wand: adaptive co-management as an emergent strategy in complex bio-economic systems. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.. Sabatier, P.A. (1988) An advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein, Policy Sciences 21 (Fall): 129-168. Sabatier, P.A., Jenkins-Smith, H.C. eds. (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder: Westview Press, 1993. Sabatier, P.A., Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (1999) 'The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment' in Paul A Sabatier (ed) Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999 Saleth, R. M., Dinar, A. (2004) The Institutional Economics of Water: A Cross-country Analysis of Institutions and Performance, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (UK). Saleth, R. M., Dinar A. (2005) “Water institutional reforms: theory and practice”. Water Policy 7 (2005): 119. Sanderson, I. (2002) Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration Vol.80 No.1, 2002 (1-22) Savenije, H. G. and van der Zaag, P. (2000) Conceptual framework for the management of shared river basins; with special reference to the SADC and EU." Water Policy 2: 9-45. Saxberg, B. O. (1992) Book review of Action Learning in Practice (2nd ed.) by Pedlar M. Personnel Psychol. 45, 640–642. Schaap, W., and S. S. Nandi. 2005. Beyond PRA: experiments in facilitating local action in water management. Development in Practice 15:643-654. Scharpf, Fritz. W. (1997) Games real actors play: actor-centered institutionalism in policy research (3th ed.). Boulder, etc.: Westview Press. Schipper, L., Pelling, M. (2006) Disaster risk, climate change and international development: scope for, and challenges to, integration. Disasters, 2009, Volume 30 Issue 1, Pages 19 – 38 Schot, J.W. and Geels, F.W., (2007) Niches in evolutionary theories of technical change: A critical survey of the literature. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 17(5), 605-622 Schuwer, D., Knaap, W. van der (2008) Dealing with developments during the Spatial Planning Key Decision process of “Space for the River”; cases Kampen and Zutphen. Conference Paper for ‘Freude am Fluss Final Conference: Space for the river, space for people? (22-24 October 2008)’, Wageningen University, The Netherlands Schmidt, V. A. (2002) The Futures of European Capitalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schmidt, V. A. (2006) Democracy in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
330
Schmidt, V. A. (2008). "Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of discourse". Annual Review of Political Science 11: 303–326. Schmidt, V. A. (2010) Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. European Political Science Review (2010), 2:1, 1–25 & European Consortium for Political Research doi:10.1017/S175577390999021X Scholten, P. (2009) Daring decisions and representative municipal democracy: an exploration within the new river management in the Netherlands. Public Innovation Journal, Volume 14(1), 2009, article 5. Scholz, R.W., Tietje, O (2002) Embedded case study methods: integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Schroter, D., Polsky, C., Patt, A.G. (2005) Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of global change: an eight step approach. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 10, 573–596. Schulze, R.E. (2003) The Thukela Dialogue. The Thukela Dialogue Managing Water related Issues on Climate Variability and Climate Change in South Africa. Report to ‘Dialogue on Water and Climate’. University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg, School of Bioresources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology, ACRU cons Report 44. Schulze, R.E. (2005) Setting the Scene: The Current Hydroclimatic “Landscape” in Southern Africa. In: Schulze, R.E. (Ed) Climate Change and Water Resources in Southern Africa: Studies on Scenarios, Impacts, Vulnerabilities and Adaptation. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, RSA, WRC Report 1430/1/05. Chapter 6, 83 - 94. Scott, W.R. (1995), Institutions and Organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Searle, J. (1995), The Construction of Social Reality, New York: Free Press. Sehring, J. (2009) Path dependencies and institutional bricolage in post‐Soviet water governance. Water Alternatives 2(1): 61‐81 Senge, P. (1990) The fifth discipline, Doubleday, New York, 1990. Shannon, M.A. (1998) Social organizations and institutions. In River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion, ed. RJ Naiman, RE Bilby, pp. 529–52. New York: Springer-Verlag Shapiro, I. (1999) ‘Enough about deliberation: politics is about interests and power’, in S. Macedo (ed.), Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 28– 38. Shapiro, I. (2003) The State of Democratic Theory, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Shepperd S, Lewin S, Straus S, Clarke M, Eccles MP, et al. (2009) Can We Systematically Review Studies That Evaluate Complex Interventions? PLoS Med 6(8): e1000086. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000086 Smit, B., Wandel, J. (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16:282–292. 331
Smith, S. (2004) Singing Our World into Existence: International Relations Theory and September 11. Presidential Address to the International Studies Association, February 27, 2003, Portland, OR. International Studies Quarterly (2004) 48, 499–515 Stave, K.A. (2002) Using System Dynamics to Improve Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. System Dynamics Review 18(2):139-167. Steel, B.S., Weber, E. (2001) Ecosystem management, decentralization, and public opinion. Global Environ. Change 11:119–31 Sterman, J.D. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Boston, Irwin McGraw-Hill. Stern, N., et al. (2006): “Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change.” HM Treasury, Chapter 6, http:// www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm. Stern, N. (2007) The Economics of Climate Change. The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stringer, L.C., Dougill, A.J., Fraser, E., Hubacek, K., Prell, C., Reed, M.S. (2006) Unpacking ‘participation’ in the adaptive management of social ecological systems: A critical review. Ecology and Society, 11(2):39 Stubbs, M., and Lemon, M. (2001) Learning to network and network to learn: facilitating the process of adaptive management in a local response to the UK’s National Air Quality Strategy. Environmental Management 27:321-334 Szompka, Pjotr (1999). Trust – a sociological theory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP Swallow, B., N. Johnson, R. Meinzen-Dick and A. Knox (2005) The Challenges of Inclusive Cross-Scale Collective Action in Watersheds: a Conceptual Framework for Research and Development. In: Impact and Policy Analysis Annual Report, CIAT, CA: Colombia. Szabo, A. (2009) The Value of Free Water: Analyzing South Africa’s Free Basic Water Policy. Paper from Economics Department, University of Minnesota. Termeer, Katrien (2004). ‘Duurzame transities: een beknopte methodologie voor trajectmanagement’, p. 41-62 in: Peter van der Knaap, Arno Korsten, Katrien ter Meer en Mark van Twist (red.), Trajectmanagement. Beschouwingen over beleidsdynamiek en organisatieverandering. Utrecht: Lemma. Termeer, C., Gupta, J. (2009) Is the Dutch institutional structure capable of adapting to climate change? IC12 Project of the Dutch knowledge program ‘Climate changes Spatial Planning’ (Klimaat voor Ruimte). Thomas, D. S. G. and C. Twyman (2005) ‘Equity and justice in climate change adaptation amongst natural resource-dependent societies’, Global Environmental Change, vol 15, pp115–124 Thompson Klein, J. (2001) Transdisciplinarity: joint problem solving among science, technology, and society: an effective way for managing complexity. Basel: Birkhauser Verlag.
332
Tietenberg, T., Wheeler, D. (2001) in Frontiers of Environmental Economics, H. Folmer, H. Landis Gabel, S. Gerking, A. Rose, Eds. (Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, 2001), pp. 85–120. Tol, R.S.J., Yohe, G.W. (2007) The weakest link hypothesis for adaptive capacity: an empirical test. Global Environmental Change 17, 218–227. Tompkins, E.L., Adger, W.N. (2004) Does adaptive management of natural resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecology and Society 9(2): 10 Uekoetter, F. (1998) Confronting the pitfalls of current environmental history: an argument for an organizational approach. Environment and History 4, 31–52. United Nations Development Programme and AusAID (2009) Gendered Dimensions of Disaster Risk Management and Adaptation to Climate Change – Stories from the Pacific. Edited by Clarity Communications Australia Pty Ltd, 2009 UNEP (2004): “Extreme Weather Losses Soar to Record High for Insurance Industry.” UNEP, December 15. http://www.unep.org UNEP (2009) “From confict to peacebuilding.” United Nations Environmental Programme. http://postconfict.unep. ch/publications/pcdmb_policy_01.pdf. Usher, R., Bryant, I. (1989) Adult Education as Theory, Practice and Research, London: Routledge. U.S. National Research Council (2004) Panel on Adaptive Management for Resource Stewardship, Committee to Assess the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Methods of Analysis and Peer Review for Water Resources Project Planning, National Research Council (2004). Adaptive Management for Water Resources Project Planning. Vaill, P. B. (1996). Learning as a Way of Being, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Van Buuren, A., Edelenbos, J. (2004) Conflicting knowledge – Why is joint knowledge production such a problem? Science and Public Policy 31(4):289-299. Van de Kerkhof, M. (2004) Debating climate change: A study of stakeholder participation in an integrated assessment of long-term climate policy in the Netherlands. Lemma Publishers, Utrecht Van den Brink, M. & Meijerink S. (2006) De spagaat van Verkeer en Waterstaat: het project Ruimte voor de Rivier. In: Stedebouw & ruimtelijke ordening, 87 (2): 22-25. Van der Zaag, P., Savenije, H.G. (2000) Towards improved management of shared river basins: from the Maseru Conference. Water Policy 2:47-63.
lessons
Van Kerkhoff, L., and L. Lebel. (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31:445-477. Vennix, J.A.M. (1999) Group Model-Building: Tackling Messy Problems. System Dynamics Review 15(4):379-401.
333
Verbout, A., Travaille, A. (2008) Succesvolle samenwerking is geen toeval. In: Overheidsmanagement, nr. 3, 2008. Videira, N., G. Lobo, P. Antunes, R. Santos, and A. Pereira (2002) Alqueva Multipurpose Project. Project Report for Advisor - Integrated Evaluation for Sustainable River Basin Governance. May 2002. Portuguese Ecological Economics and Management Centre. Videira, N., G. Lobo, P. Antunes, and R. Santos (2003) Public participation in integrated river basin governance. Project Report for Advisor - Integrated Evaluation for Sustainable River Basin Governance. May 2003. Portuguese Ecological Economics and Management Centre. Videira, N., Antunes, P., Santos, R., Lobo, G. (2005) Public and stakeholder participation in European water policy: a critical review of project evaluation processes. European Environment, 2005, Volume 16, Issue 1 , Pages19 - 31 Vink B. en A. van der Burg, 2006. New Dutch spatial planning policy creates space for development. In: disP,164 (1): 41-49. Von Korff, Y. (2005) Towards an Evaluation Method for Public Participation Processes in AquaStress and NeWater, typescript. Voss, J-P., and R. Kemp (2005) ‘Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development. Incorporating Feedback in Social Problem-Solving ', paper for ESEE conference, June 14-17, 2005, Lisbon. Vries, F.W.T.P. (2006) Learning Alliances for the broad implementation of an integrated approach to multiple sources, multiple uses and multiple users of water. Water Resources Management 21:79-95. VROM. (Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing and the Environment), 2004. Nota Ruimte – Ruimte voor ontwikkeling. Den Haag. Wailand, W.J. (2006) Evolving Strategies for Twenty-First Century Natural Resource Problems – Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict: New Institutions for Collaborative. Edited by John T. Scholz Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. Carpenter, and A. Kinzig (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9(2): 5. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5. Walker, W., Harremoës, P., Rotmans, J., Van der Slujs, J., Van Asselt, M., Jansen, P., Krayer von Krauss, M.P. (2003) Defining Uncertainty: A Conceptual Basis for Uncertainty Management in Model-Based Decision Supprt. Journal of Integrated Assessment, 4 (1) 5-17 Walters, C. (1986) Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Macmillan and Co., New York, New York. Warner, J. F. (2006) More sustainable participation? Multi-stakeholder platforms for integrated catchment management. Water Resources Development 22:15-35.
334
Water Partner Foundation (2009) Water governance cards – A methodology for assessing the effectiveness of water governance. Water Partner Foundation, The Hague, The Netherlands, 2009 Watkins, K. (2007): “Human Develop Report 2007/2008 Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world.” United Nations Development Programme. WCD (2000) Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision Making. World Commission on Dams, Cape Town. Wegerich, K., (2007) Against the conventional wisdom: Why Sector Reallocation of Water and MultiStakeholder Platforms do not take place in Uzbekistan. Chapter 14 in “Multistakeholder Platforms for Integrated Water Management’, edited by Jeroen Warner. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2007 Weible, C.M., Sabatier, P.A., McQueen, K. (2009) Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework. The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2009
Weinstein, M.S. (2000), Georgetown Int. Environ. Law Rev. 12, 375 (2000). Weiss, E., Jacobson, H., Eds. (1998), Engaging Countries: Strengthening Compliance with International Environmental Agreements (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998). Wendt, A. (1987). The agent-structure problem in international relations theory’, International Organization vol 41, no. 3, p. 335-350. Wendt, A. (1995) ‘Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics’, in Kratochwil and Mansfield (eds), International Organization: A Reader, p. 87 Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice; learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: University Press, Cambridge, UK Wilbanks, T.J., Kates, R.W. (1999) Global change in local places: how scale matters. Climatic Change 43, 601–628. Wilson, C., MCDaniels, T. (2007) Structured decision-making to link climate change and sustainable development. Climate Policy 7 (2007) 353–370. Wilson, T.D. (2002) The nonsense of 'knowledge management'. Information Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, October 2002 Wolf, Aaron T. (1997) “International water conflict resolution: Lessons from comparative analysis”, in: Water Resources Development, Vol. 13, No. 3: 333-356. Wollenberg, E., D. Edmunds, and L. Buck (2000) Anticipating Change: Scenarios as a tool for adaptive forest management. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Indonesia., Bogor. World Bank, and Asian Development Bank (2006) WB/ADB Joint Working Paper on Future directions for water resources management in the Mekong River Basin: Mekong Water Resources Assistance Strategy (MWRAS). June 2006. The World Bank and Asian Development Bank.
335
World Bank (2007) Actual Crop Water Use in Project Countries: A Synthesis at the Regional Level. Policy Research Work- ing Paper 4288, Sustainable Rural and Urban Development Team, World Bank, Washington, DC. World Health Organization (2002) World Health Report 2002: Reducing risks, promoting healthy life. WHO, Geneva, 2002. World Health Organization (2009) 10 Facts on climate change http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/climate_change/facts/en/index8.html
and
health.
Online:
World Water Development Report (2009) The 3rd United Nations World Water Development Report: Water in a Changing World (WWDR-3), 2009, www.unesco.org World Resources Institute (2009): “Annual Adaptation Costs in Developing Countries.” World Resources Institute. http://www. wri.org/chart/annual-adaptation-costs-developing- countries Young, O.R. (2002) The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale (Global Environmental Accords: Strategies for Sustainability). Cumberland: MIT Press. Young, O.R., Zürn, M. (2006) The International Regimes Database: Designing and Using a Sophisticated Tool for Institutional Analysis Global Environmental Politics - Volume 6, Number 3, August 2006, pp. 121143 Zagonel, A. A., Rohrbaugh, J. 2007. Using Group Model Building to Inform Public Policy Making and Implementation. In H. Qudrat-Ullah, J. M. Spector, P. Davidson (eds.), Complex Decision Making: Theory and Practice. New York: Springer. Zhang X., F. W. Zwiers, G. C. Hegerl, F. H. Lambert, N. P. Gillett, S. Solomon, P. A. Stott, and T. Nozawa (2007) Detection of Human Influence on Twentieth-Century Precipitation Trends. Nature 448: 461-65.
336
337
APPENDIX I – QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ASSESSING THE LEVEL OF AIWM
339
340
341
342
343
344
APPENDIX II – QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ASSESSING THE SCOPE AND DIVERSITY OF PHYSICAL INTERVENTIONS FOR DEALING WITH FLOODS AND DROUGHTS IN A RIVER BASIN The following table lists a number of potential (physical) interventions in the river basin. These interventions are defined as adaptation measures in response to, or preparing for, climate–related extreme events, such as torrential rains, floods, droughts and low flows in rivers. Please indicate (x) which of these are planned or have been implemented in Khorezm / Karakalpakstan as a response to climate change concerns, and which of these you deem necessary and/or effective in addressing climate change-related problems. Please add additional measures if necessary. Please specify major investments costs if possible. Implemented (= physically present)
Adaptation measure
Planned
Effective/Not necessary relevant/ (but not not planned necessary yet)
Flood protection Technical flood protection Raise dykes (if possible, please specify major investments costs) Replacement of dykes to enlarge river bed capacity Enlarge reservoirs
Construction of retention areas (also called inundation areas to reduce flood run-off) Upgrade drainage systems River bypasses (also called ‘green rivers’ when there is no peak discharge) Deepening of summer bed
345
Implemented (= physically present)
Adaptation measure
Planned
Effective/Not necessary relevant/ (but not not planned necessary yet)
Reforestation areas to reduce flood run-off Adjustment or removal of hydraulic obstacles in river bed
Other, please specify: Natural retention of flood Floodplain restoration (which involves water lowering/deepening of floodplain) Change of land use Other, please specify: Restriction of settlement/building development in risk areas Standards for building development (e.g. permeable surfaces, greening roofs etc.) Others, please specify:
Drought/low flow protection Technical measures to increase supply
Increase Reservoir volumes Water transfers
Desalinisation
Securing minimum flows
346
Implemented (= physically present)
Adaptation measure
Planned
Effective/Not necessary relevant/ (but not not planned necessary yet)
in dry periods Increasing efficiency of water use
Leakage reduction Use of grey water More efficient irrigation
Restriction of water uses Crop adaptations
High resilient crop seeds Crop rotation (for soil recovery) Crop choice (crops with more efficient water use)
Landscape planning measures to improve water balance (e.g. change of land use, reforestation, reduced sealing of areas) Others, please specify:
347
