The Problem Ø Fragmentation of water management Ø

The Problem: Ø Fragmentation of water management Ø Of issues Ø Of basins Ø A too bureaucratic approach

The solution: Ø Integrated Water Resources Management Ø IWRM

Ø Notion:

Ø Managerial solution Ø Political slogan l l l Mar del Plata - 1977 Dublin - 1992 Rio – 1992 Bonn Johannesburg - 2002 Ø Legal obligation

Ø EU Policy and Law: rethinking mid-nineties WFD - 2000

Ø No express reference per se Ø Several normative hints

Ø Normative pillars of the IWRM concept in the WFD: Ø SUBSTANCE l l l Conjunctive management of waters River Basin management Environmental objectives – good water status

Ø Normative pillars of the IWRM concept in the WFD: Ø Institutional - Procedural Ø River basin District () Ø International River Basin District Ø Member States – comptences Ø Commission – competences Ø Stakeholders – individuals - rights

Ø Multi-level governance Ø Web of relations Ø networks

Ø Normative pillars of the IWRM concept in the WFD: Ø Instrumental - Procedural Ø River bain management Plans (RBMP) – catalytic moment for catering all the views of the public / stakeholders

Ø Normative pillars of the IWRM concept in the WFD: Ø Procedural Ø Information Ø Participation Ø Reports – scoreboards – accountability Ø Cooperation Ø Schedule for meeting the obligations

Ø Implementation – some provisional findings

Ø Implementation Ø source of normative indications?

Ø River basin district – not necessarily corresponding river basin district authority, albeit there is a trend for disseminating matching river basin organisations Ø Take time to be set up and functioning (properly) Ø Problem of resources ( equanimity)

Member States Ø Perdure Ø Main implementation function Ø Still an important level of centralisation Ø Environmentalisation Ø Redefinition of tasks and understanding of managerial function Ø Commitment of resources Ø Clearing house

Ø Member States Ø Cooperation with EU in the CIS

EU Clearing house steerring Law maker Implementation and Enforcement – cooperative strategy

Stakeholders Ø – the crucial importance of information

Ø Public Ø Low engagement

Ø Mult-level Governance Ø Much more dynamic governance Adaptive governance, iterative governance, Ø One which integrates Ø Science, policy and

Ø Public deliberation over climate change has traditionally been dominated by the natural and physical sciences. have received short shrift in the conversation. But they absolutely must be addressed as we respond to this "Greenhouse Governance" brings a much-needed public policy mindset to discussion of climate change in America. "Greenhouse Governance" features a number of

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

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

Ø Shift in the understanding of management

Ø unprecedented challenge.

Ø Public opinion – make the decision-makers move

Ø Continuing process – learning process - communication

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

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

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

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

Ø The main theme was social learning, which Ø emphasizes the importance of collaboration, organization, and learning. The case studies show that social Ø learning in river-basin management is not an unrealistic ideal. Resistance to social learning was encountered, Ø but many instances of social learning were found, and several positive results were identified.

Ø the role of stakeholder involvement, politics and institutions, opportunities for interaction, motivation and Ø skills of leaders and facilitators, openness and transparency, representativeness, framing and reframing, Ø and adequate resources

Ø policy change and the role that ideas play in this Ø (Hall 1993, Greener 2001). In a third tradition, social Ø learning is linked to concepts such as public Ø participation, polycentric governance, collaborative Ø governance, comanagement of natural resources, Ø and common-pool resource management

Ø Social learning is based on three key ideas. First, all Ø stakeholders should be involved in natural resource Ø management. Typically, no single stakeholder has Ø all the necessary information, legal competencies,

Ø funds, and other resources to manage a natural Ø resource to his or her satisfaction; therefore, the Ø stakeholders need to collaborate. Second, natural Ø resource management requires a form of

Ø organization. To facilitate collaboration and Ø coordinate their actions in a sustained way, the Ø stakeholders need to enter into a long-term working Ø relationship. This can be done through users’

Ø organizations (e. g. , Ostrom 1990, Meinzen -Dick Ø 1997, Pretty and Ward 2001), multistakeholder Ø platforms (e. g. , Leach and Pelkey 2001, Warner Ø 2006), or informal policy networks (e. g. , Klijn and

Ø Koppenjan 2000, 2006). Third, natural resource Ø management is a learning process (cf. Holling Ø 1978). It requires the development of new Ø knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behaviors to deal

Ø with differences constructively, adapt to change, Ø and cope with uncertainty. Ø Social learning can be analyzed as a process that Ø takes place within a context (Craps 2003, Ridder et

Ø al. 2005, Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007). The context Ø includes the natural context, e. g. , geography, Ø hydrology, and ecology, as well as the social Ø context, e. g. , the governance system, economy, and

Ø culture. The social learning process can begin when Ø the stakeholders realize their interdependence and Ø think that participation in the process can yield Ø better results than unilateral action.

Ø The process involves the Ø development of trust, joint problem definition, joint Ø fact finding, the development and assessment of Ø different alternatives, joint decision making, and Ø joint planning for implementation (Gray 1989,

Ø Ridder et al. 2005). The outcomes of the process Ø can include both improved management and social– Ø relational outcomes such as better relations, Ø increased trust, empowerment of stakeholders, and Ø the establishment or strengthening of networks.

Ø Participatory processes can lead to changes in riverbasin Ø management that benefit all stakeholders and Ø the environment.

Ø the need for clarity Ø about the role of stakeholder involvement. Quite Ø often, the means, timing, and purpose of stakeholder Ø involvement were not clarified, with negative Ø impacts on social learning. In five cases, the status

Ø of the initiative in which the stakeholders could Ø become involved was not made clear. Often, the Ø organizers lacked decision-making powers. As a Ø result, in more than half of the cases, the Ø stakeholders doubted that their input would make

Ø The unclear role of stakeholder participation was Ø only partly a matter of poor communication.

Ø important were political and institutional factors. Ø Quite often, the existing governance style was not Ø participatory, and it took a lot of convincing to move Ø toward multiparty collaboration. In many cases, the

Ø authorities lacked experience with multiparty Ø approaches, relied heavily on technical expertise, Ø feared to lose control, or feared that too broad Ø participation could threaten the confidentiality of Ø the proceedings. As a result, participation often

Ø remained limited. In the Elbe basin, for instance, Ø interaction with the stakeholders was limited Ø primarily to information provision to one Ø stakeholder group at a time. In the Muga basin, Ø negotiations tended to be bilateral and limited to key

Ø stakeholders and institutions, thus limiting the Ø possibilities for social learning. In the Flemish Ø basin, the lead organizations only consulted Ø stakeholders on a bilateral basis to avoid opening Ø up the discussion too widely.

Ø Complicating factors included the relations among Ø the different authorities, scale problems, and the Ø pre-existing distribution of water rights.

Ø Resistance to social learning may be overcome by Ø stimulating and building on positive experiences, e. Ø g. , by starting a participatory process with Ø constructive interviews with stakeholders and by Ø referring to the positive outcomes of other Ø participatory processes.

Ø Resources Ø Limited resources of both the organizers and other Ø stakeholders were often mentioned as important Ø hindering factors. Costs were not considered Ø sufficiently in the planning process in four of the Ø cases. Moreover, it was not always clear how

Ø stakeholders wanted to be involved and what level Ø of commitment they were able to give to the process Ø in terms of time. When stakeholders have unequal Ø access to resources, some may be able to participate Ø more than others, thus threatening the representativeness

Ø social learning is nothing Ø special. It occurs whenever interdependent Ø stakeholders with different interest and perceptions Ø come together and manage to deal with their Ø differences to the benefit of all involved.