The Problem:The Problem: Fragmentation of water managementFragmentation of water management Of issuesOf issues Of basinsOf basins

A too bureaucratic approachA too bureaucratic approach

The solution:The solution: Integrated Water Resources ManagementIntegrated Water Resources Management IWRMIWRM

Notion:Notion:

Managerial solutionManagerial solution Political sloganPolitical slogan

Mar del Plata - 1977Mar del Plata - 1977 Dublin - 1992Dublin - 1992 Rio – 1992Rio – 1992 BonnBonn Johannesburg - 2002Johannesburg - 2002

Legal obligationLegal obligation

EU Policy and Law:EU Policy and Law:

rethinking mid-ninetiesrethinking mid-nineties

WFD - 2000WFD - 2000

No express reference No express reference per seper se Several normative hintsSeveral normative hints

Normative pillars of the IWRM concept in Normative pillars of the IWRM concept in the WFD: the WFD:

SUBSTANCESUBSTANCE Conjunctive management of watersConjunctive management of waters River Basin managementRiver Basin management Environmental objectives – good water statusEnvironmental objectives – good water status

Normative pillars of the IWRM concept in Normative pillars of the IWRM concept in the WFD: the WFD:

Institutional - ProceduralInstitutional - Procedural River basin District ()River basin District () International River Basin DistrictInternational River Basin District Member States – comptencesMember States – comptences Commission – competencesCommission – competences Stakeholders – individuals - rightsStakeholders – individuals - rights

Multi-level governanceMulti-level governance

Web of relations Web of relations networksnetworks

Normative pillars of the IWRM concept in Normative pillars of the IWRM concept in the WFD: the WFD:

Instrumental - ProceduralInstrumental - Procedural River bain management Plans (RBMP) – River bain management Plans (RBMP) –

catalytic moment for catering all the views catalytic moment for catering all the views of the public / stakeholders of the public / stakeholders

Normative pillars of the IWRM concept in the Normative pillars of the IWRM concept in the WFD: WFD:

ProceduralProcedural InformationInformation ParticipationParticipation

Reports – scoreboards – accountabilityReports – scoreboards – accountability

CooperationCooperation

Schedule for meeting the obligationsSchedule for meeting the obligations

Implementation Implementation

– – some provisional findingssome provisional findings

Implementation Implementation source of normative indications?source of normative indications?

River basin district – not necessarily River basin district – not necessarily corresponding river basin district authority, corresponding river basin district authority, albeit there is a trend for disseminating albeit there is a trend for disseminating matching river basin organisationsmatching river basin organisations

Take time to be set up and functioning Take time to be set up and functioning (properly)(properly)

Problem of resources ( equanimity)Problem of resources ( equanimity)

Member StatesMember States PerdurePerdure Main implementation functionMain implementation function Still an important level of centralisationStill an important level of centralisation EnvironmentalisationEnvironmentalisation Redefinition of tasks and understanding of Redefinition of tasks and understanding of

managerial functionmanagerial function Commitment of resourcesCommitment of resources Clearing houseClearing house

Member StatesMember States

Cooperation with EU in the CISCooperation with EU in the CIS

EUEUClearing houseClearing house

steerringsteerring

Law makerLaw maker

Implementation and Enforcement – Implementation and Enforcement – cooperative strategycooperative strategy

Stakeholders Stakeholders

– – the crucial importance of informationthe crucial importance of information

PublicPublic

Low engagementLow engagement

Mult-level GovernanceMult-level Governance Much more dynamic governanceMuch more dynamic governance

Adaptive governance, iterative Adaptive governance, iterative governance, governance,

One which integrates One which integrates Science, policy and Science, policy and

Public deliberation over climate change has traditionally Public deliberation over climate change has traditionally been dominated by the natural and physical sciences. been dominated by the natural and physical sciences. have received short shrift in the conversation. But they have received short shrift in the conversation. But they absolutely must be addressed as we respond to this absolutely must be addressed as we respond to this "Greenhouse Governance" brings a much-needed public "Greenhouse Governance" brings a much-needed public policy mindset to discussion of climate change in America. policy mindset to discussion of climate change in America. "Greenhouse Governance" features a number of America's "Greenhouse Governance" features a number of America's preeminent public policy scholars, examining some aspect preeminent public policy scholars, examining some aspect of governance and climate change. They analyze the state of governance and climate change. They analyze the state and influence of American public opinion on climate and influence of American public opinion on climate change as well as federalism and intergovernmental change as well as federalism and intergovernmental relations, which prove especially important since. relations, which prove especially important since.

state and local governments have taken a state and local governments have taken a more active role than originally expectedmore active role than originally expected

GovernanceGovernance Is the planet warming? To Is the planet warming? To what degree, and is mankind responsible? what degree, and is mankind responsible? How big a problem is this, really? But How big a problem is this, really? But concurrent with these debates is the concurrent with these debates is the question of what should be done. Indeed, question of what should be done. Indeed, what can be done? Issues of governance, what can be done? Issues of governance, including the political feasibility of certain including the political feasibility of certain policies and their capacity for policies and their capacity for implementation, implementation,

Shift in the understanding of managementShift in the understanding of management

unprecedented challenge.unprecedented challenge.

Public opinion – make the decision-Public opinion – make the decision-makers movemakers move

Continuing process – learning process - Continuing process – learning process - communicationcommunication

Water policy seems in perpetual crisis. Water policy seems in perpetual crisis. Increasingly, conflicts extend beyond the Increasingly, conflicts extend beyond the statutory authority, competence, statutory authority, competence, geographical jurisdictions, and political geographical jurisdictions, and political constituencies of highly specialized constituencies of highly specialized governing authorities. governing authorities.

While other books address specific policy While other books address specific policy approaches or the application of adaptive approaches or the application of adaptive management strategies to specific management strategies to specific problems, this is the first book to focus problems, this is the first book to focus more broadly on adaptive governance, or more broadly on adaptive governance, or the evolution of new institutions that the evolution of new institutions that attempt to resolve conflicts among attempt to resolve conflicts among competing authorities.competing authorities.

nnovative institutional arrangements-some nnovative institutional arrangements-some successful, some not-that evolved to successful, some not-that evolved to grapple with the resulting challenges. grapple with the resulting challenges.

challenges that new institutions must challenges that new institutions must overcome to develop sustainable solutions overcome to develop sustainable solutions for water users: Who is to be involved in for water users: Who is to be involved in the policy process? How are they to the policy process? How are they to interact? How is science to be used? How interact? How is science to be used? How are users and the public to be made are users and the public to be made aware? How can solutions be made aware? How can solutions be made efficient and equitable?efficient and equitable?

The main theme was social learning, whichThe main theme was social learning, which emphasizes the importance of collaboration, emphasizes the importance of collaboration,

organization, and learning. The case studies organization, and learning. The case studies show that socialshow that social

learning in river-basin management is not an learning in river-basin management is not an unrealistic ideal. Resistance to social learning unrealistic ideal. Resistance to social learning was encountered,was encountered,

but many instances of social learning were but many instances of social learning were found, and several positive results were found, and several positive results were identified.identified.

the role of stakeholder involvement, the role of stakeholder involvement, politics and institutions, opportunities for politics and institutions, opportunities for interaction, motivation andinteraction, motivation and

skills of leaders and facilitators, openness skills of leaders and facilitators, openness and transparency, representativeness, and transparency, representativeness, framing and reframing,framing and reframing,

and adequate resourcesand adequate resources

policy change and the role that ideas play in policy change and the role that ideas play in thisthis

(Hall 1993, Greener 2001). In a third tradition, (Hall 1993, Greener 2001). In a third tradition, socialsocial

learning is linked to concepts such as publiclearning is linked to concepts such as public participation, polycentric governance, participation, polycentric governance,

collaborativecollaborative governance, comanagement of natural governance, comanagement of natural

resources,resources, and common-pool resource managementand common-pool resource management

Social learning is based on three key Social learning is based on three key ideas. First, allideas. First, all

stakeholders should be involved in natural stakeholders should be involved in natural resourceresource

management. Typically, no single management. Typically, no single stakeholder hasstakeholder has

all the necessary information, legal all the necessary information, legal competencies,competencies,

funds, and other resources to manage a funds, and other resources to manage a naturalnatural

resource to his or her satisfaction; resource to his or her satisfaction; therefore, thetherefore, the

stakeholders need to collaborate. Second, stakeholders need to collaborate. Second, naturalnatural

resource management requires a form ofresource management requires a form of

organization. To facilitate collaboration organization. To facilitate collaboration andand

coordinate their actions in a sustained coordinate their actions in a sustained way, theway, the

stakeholders need to enter into a long-stakeholders need to enter into a long-term workingterm working

relationship. This can be done through relationship. This can be done through users’users’

organizations (e.g., Ostrom 1990, organizations (e.g., Ostrom 1990, Meinzen-DickMeinzen-Dick

1997, Pretty and Ward 2001), 1997, Pretty and Ward 2001), multistakeholdermultistakeholder

platforms (e.g., Leach and Pelkey 2001, platforms (e.g., Leach and Pelkey 2001, WarnerWarner

2006), or informal policy networks (e.g., 2006), or informal policy networks (e.g., Klijn andKlijn and

Koppenjan 2000, 2006). Third, natural Koppenjan 2000, 2006). Third, natural resourceresource

management is a learning process (cf. management is a learning process (cf. HollingHolling

1978). It requires the development of new1978). It requires the development of new knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behaviors knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behaviors

to dealto deal

with differences constructively, adapt to with differences constructively, adapt to change,change,

and cope with uncertainty.and cope with uncertainty. Social learning can be analyzed as a Social learning can be analyzed as a

process thatprocess that takes place within a context (Craps 2003, takes place within a context (Craps 2003,

Ridder etRidder et

al. 2005, Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007). The al. 2005, Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007). The contextcontext

includes the natural context, e.g., includes the natural context, e.g., geography,geography,

hydrology, and ecology, as well as the hydrology, and ecology, as well as the socialsocial

context, e.g., the governance system, context, e.g., the governance system, economy, andeconomy, and

culture. The social learning process can culture. The social learning process can begin whenbegin when

the stakeholders realize their the stakeholders realize their interdependence andinterdependence and

think that participation in the process can think that participation in the process can yieldyield

better results than unilateral action.better results than unilateral action.

The process involves theThe process involves the development of trust, joint problem development of trust, joint problem

definition, jointdefinition, joint fact finding, the development and fact finding, the development and

assessment ofassessment of different alternatives, joint decision making, different alternatives, joint decision making,

andand joint planning for implementation (Gray joint planning for implementation (Gray

1989,1989,

Ridder et al. 2005). The outcomes of the Ridder et al. 2005). The outcomes of the processprocess

can include both improved management and can include both improved management and social–social–

relational outcomes such as better relations,relational outcomes such as better relations, increased trust, empowerment of increased trust, empowerment of

stakeholders, andstakeholders, and the establishment or strengthening of the establishment or strengthening of

networks.networks.

Participatory processes can lead to Participatory processes can lead to changes in riverbasinchanges in riverbasin

management that benefit all stakeholders management that benefit all stakeholders andand

the environment.the environment.

the need for claritythe need for clarity about the role of stakeholder involvement. about the role of stakeholder involvement.

QuiteQuite often, the means, timing, and purpose of often, the means, timing, and purpose of

stakeholderstakeholder involvement were not clarified, with negativeinvolvement were not clarified, with negative impacts on social learning. In five cases, the impacts on social learning. In five cases, the

statusstatus

of the initiative in which the stakeholders of the initiative in which the stakeholders couldcould

become involved was not made clear. become involved was not made clear. Often, theOften, the

organizers lacked decision-making powers. organizers lacked decision-making powers. As aAs a

result, in more than half of the cases, theresult, in more than half of the cases, the stakeholders doubted that their input would stakeholders doubted that their input would

makemake

The unclear role of stakeholder The unclear role of stakeholder participation wasparticipation was

only partly a matter of poor only partly a matter of poor communication.communication.

important were political and institutional important were political and institutional factors.factors.

Quite often, the existing governance style Quite often, the existing governance style was notwas not

participatory, and it took a lot of convincing participatory, and it took a lot of convincing to moveto move

toward multiparty collaboration. In many toward multiparty collaboration. In many cases, thecases, the

authorities lacked experience with multipartyauthorities lacked experience with multiparty approaches, relied heavily on technical approaches, relied heavily on technical

expertise,expertise, feared to lose control, or feared that too broadfeared to lose control, or feared that too broad participation could threaten the confidentiality participation could threaten the confidentiality

ofof the proceedings. As a result, participation the proceedings. As a result, participation

oftenoften

remained limited. In the Elbe basin, for remained limited. In the Elbe basin, for instance,instance,

interaction with the stakeholders was limitedinteraction with the stakeholders was limited primarily to information provision to oneprimarily to information provision to one stakeholder group at a time. In the Muga stakeholder group at a time. In the Muga

basin,basin, negotiations tended to be bilateral and negotiations tended to be bilateral and

limited to keylimited to key

stakeholders and institutions, thus limiting stakeholders and institutions, thus limiting thethe

possibilities for social learning. In the possibilities for social learning. In the FlemishFlemish

basin, the lead organizations only consultedbasin, the lead organizations only consulted stakeholders on a bilateral basis to avoid stakeholders on a bilateral basis to avoid

openingopening up the discussion too widely.up the discussion too widely.

Complicating factors included the relations Complicating factors included the relations amongamong

the different authorities, scale problems, the different authorities, scale problems, and theand the

pre-existing distribution of water rights.pre-existing distribution of water rights.

Resistance to social learning may be Resistance to social learning may be overcome byovercome by

stimulating and building on positive stimulating and building on positive experiences, e.experiences, e.

g., by starting a participatory process withg., by starting a participatory process with constructive interviews with stakeholders and constructive interviews with stakeholders and

byby referring to the positive outcomes of otherreferring to the positive outcomes of other participatory processes.participatory processes.

ResourcesResources Limited resources of both the organizers and Limited resources of both the organizers and

otherother stakeholders were often mentioned as stakeholders were often mentioned as

importantimportant hindering factors. Costs were not consideredhindering factors. Costs were not considered sufficiently in the planning process in four of sufficiently in the planning process in four of

thethe cases. Moreover, it was not always clear howcases. Moreover, it was not always clear how

stakeholders wanted to be involved and what levelstakeholders wanted to be involved and what level of commitment they were able to give to the of commitment they were able to give to the

processprocess in terms of time. When stakeholders have unequalin terms of time. When stakeholders have unequal access to resources, some may be able to access to resources, some may be able to

participateparticipate more than others, thus threatening the more than others, thus threatening the

representativenessrepresentativeness of the processof the process

social learning is nothingsocial learning is nothing special. It occurs whenever special. It occurs whenever

interdependentinterdependent stakeholders with different interest and stakeholders with different interest and

perceptionsperceptions come together and manage to deal with come together and manage to deal with

theirtheir differences to the benefit of all involved.differences to the benefit of all involved.