• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

THE ROLE OF PARTICIPATION IN IWRM Final report NeWater case study Rhine Report of the NeWater project - New Approaches to Adaptive Water Management under Uncertainty www.newater.info Title THE ROLE OF PARTICIPATION IN IWRM Final report NeWater case study Rhine Purpose Final Report of the Newater case study Rhine Filename D 3.2.7_003.doc Authors Timmerman, Ottow, Lamers, Raadgever, Francois, Möllenkamp, Huesmann, Buiteveld, Isendahl Document history Current version. 3 Changes to previous version. Date Status Final Target readership General readership Correct reference H. Buiteveld (Ed) Rijkswaterstaat, Center for Water Managenent, Lelystad, The Netherlands December 2008 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 Deliverable title: The Role of Participation in IWRM. Final report NeWater case study Rhine Deliverable no.: D 3.2.7 Due date of deliverable: Month 48 Actual submission date: Month 48 Start of the project: 01.01.2005 Duration: 4 years Preamble Water managers and policy makers face many challenges. They have to satisfy various, often conflicting demands with limited resources, grapple with uncertainty, particularly that related to climate change, and often lack effective tools to address an array of complex water management issues. Adaptive Water Management (AWM) is an approach to cope with these challenges. It assumes that sustainable management of water resources will only occur if we can increase our capacity to learn from experience and adapt to change and uncertainty. AWM acknowledges the various types of uncertainty that we face: that there is (and will always be) uncertainty on how the different parts of the water system interact, how the system works and how it will change with time. A central part of this management approach, therefore, is not only to overcome lack of knowledge and seek new information (for example, with tools to support adaptive monitoring as well as tools to better assess future development). It is equally important to improve the capacity of the actors involved to process this information and draw meaningful conclusions from it: “Adaptive management is learning to manage by managing to learn”. As distinguished from other management approaches, AWM demands an assessment cycle that builds on the participation of all relevant actors during the management process. To be fully effective, the management process needs to be open for and encourage change in a way that is transparent and understandable to all actors. The capacity of stakeholders to protect their interests and to utilise a whole-system approach is a precondition for joint decision making in sustainable water resources management. NeWater has dealt with a wide variety of issues and made valuable insights to support AWM in practice. These insights have emerged in large part from the experiences and results of the seven case study basins including the Rhine, Elbe, Guadiana and Tisza basins in Europe, the Amudarya in Central Asia, and the Orange and Nile basins in Africa. iii Executive Summary The Newater case study Rhine consists of three sub cases: Wupper, Kromme Rijn and Niederrhein. In the sub-cases Wupper and Niederrhein the research is done in close cooperation with the ACER project. In this report the main activities in the sub-cases are described, which concern the organisation of participative processes. Wupper The Wupper sub-case study in Germany is a joint NeWater and ACER activity, consisting of two broad activities and corresponding stakeholder interactions. The first activity concerns different research questions on the level of the whole Wupper basin and the second activity concerns consultancy and scientific advice concerning the planning and implementation of a Round table discussion in the Dhünn sub-catchment. Stakeholder interaction took different forms such as meetings, dialogues, interviews and workshops and involved various groups and individuals from the catchment and beyond. The NeWater/ACER involvement was considered as a valuable intervention and advice in as-pects of participatory and adaptive water management by stakeholders and especially by the Wupperverband. At the same time, especially concerning the research questions, the risk of stakeholder fatigue was perceived for some stakeholders that were in contact with several different aspects of the work (research and round table). Kromme Rijn The sub-case “Kromme Rijn” concentrated on the application of the WFD for the water body “de Kromme Rijn” and the development of a water management plan for the Kromme Rijn region, assisting the waterboard HDSR. The assistance by Newater comprised two parts: 1) the evaluation of the hydrological situation, and 2) the design , implementation and evaluation of the stakeholder participation. The stakeholder participation process was designed based on a stakeholder analysis, and resulted in the Water management plan Kromme Rijn. The design of the participation process followed a “nested design”, in which a smaller group of stakeholders (the “core group”) was part of a larger group of stakeholders (the “consultation group”), which was in turn part of a still larger group (the “communication group”). Each group had their own activities with specific objectives. Trust is a key issue and takes time to develop. This was true for the relationship between the Newater researchers and the water board staff, but also for the relationship between the waterboard staff and other involved stakeholders groups. We saw a growing trust and a growing effectiveness in the co- operation. Gradually the involvement of the Newater researchers grew from “OK, if you really wish, but don’t cause us to spend too much time” from the side of the water board to a natural step in the preparation of the different activities. The Newater staff even provided a description of the participation process as an annex to the water management plan. In the functioning of the core group and consultation group we saw the same development. The members of the groups became more and more active in suggesting alternative solutions and improvements for the measures and the communication of these measures. Key to the development of adaptive management in the sub-case have been the reflection workshops organized for the waterboard and members of the core group at the start, halfway and at the end of the activities. Niederrhein The sub-case “Niederrhein” focused on the issue of transboundary flood management. The main goal was to develop a shared view on future flood management in the (Lower) Rhine basin between stakeholders in Germany and the Netherlands. The case study was initiated and is still driven by research projects, but has been organised in close cooperation with the Dutch-German Working Group on Flood management. After interviews and a Q sorting questionnaire were conducted in order to identify the existing perspectives on future flood management. a first stakeholder workshop was iv organised. After the workshop it appeared that not all Working Group members were willing to commit to a ‘joint’ project. This was a big disappointment, but it allowed inviting other stakeholders (e.g., NGOs and upstream parties) to the second and third workshop. It was difficult to keep the participants committed to participate in the collaborative process, because 1) the project discussed long-term, uncertain developments (with no direct connection to the day-to-day work of most stakeholders), 2) the project had no formal influence on decision-making, and 3) there were large gaps (up to one year) between subsequent workshops (allowing for modelling and analysis to be carried out). We analyzed whether the collaboration between researchers, policymakers and other stakeholders supported mutual learning about future flood management, by conducting a repeated Q sorting questionnaire, conducting interviews, and analyzing the process. Setting up the research with stakeholders Among the key IWRM areas where NeWater is expected to deliver result are stakeholder participation and bridging the gap between science, policy and implementation. The research in the case studies was set up in an interactive way. The result of this process is given in the Research and Action Plan Rhine (RAP). The RAP describes the links between the sub-cases and the research done in WB 1 and 2, along with the research questions and stakeholder requirements. The RAP was made at the end of the first project year. Initially the time estimated for defining the research in cooperation with the stakeholders was shorter. During the second project year the research in the case studies started with the stakeholder workshops. The original sub-case Emscher was, due to administrative problems, cancelled. However, a new case in the Wupper-catchment was initiated, replacing the Emscher case study. Most of the Emscher RAP has been transferred to the Wupper sub-case. In the Niederrhein case, the involvement of the main stakeholder group changed and other stakeholders joined the process. In the “Kromme Rijn”, a mismatch occurred between the tools developed and the possibilities to use it in the participative process. It is clear from these examples that it was a great challenge to match the stakeholder needs with the Newater research. Such processes cost time, because mutual trust is required to be successful. Findings The most important tool used to improve participation in the three Rhine cases was the workshop. The work in our cases showed that the process to set up the participatory process is critical in order to make participation happen. Setting up a participatory process, especially when it is the first time such an approach is chosen, can be considered a risk for the convenor. For the proper organisation of such a process, cooperation with researchers and consultants can help in order to ensure a more comprehensive planning and preparation and to ultimately share the burden in case something goes wrong (also see Möllenkamp et al. 2008). Furthermore, building of trust is important in setting up a participatory process.

Load more

  55

Copy Link