Date post: | 18-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Education |
Upload: | countryside-and-community-research-institute |
View: | 95 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Where’s the ‘stake’ for involving stakeholders in catchment
management?
John Powell and Chris Short Countryside and Community Research Institute
University of Gloucestershire
Overview
• EU Water Framework Directive - a driver for both improved quality and encouraging active involvement of stakeholders
• Respective roles of the state and stakeholders that are becoming engaged remain unclear
• Aim of paper: explore how institutional design and social-ecological perspectives can inform governance of catchments
• Focus on a case study of the ‘Catchment-Based Approach (CaBA) in England
Integrated catchment management
Definition – ‘a comprehensive approach that aligns multiple objectives in a river basin across different spatial scales and temporal dimensions’
A form of ‘co-management’ – a ‘tailoring’ of institutional arrangements to deliver locally determined goals
Principles for good practice (Bissett et al. 2009):• Integration –common issues identified• Collaboration –stakeholders agree actions/goals• Adaptation –planning process can respond to change.
Governance and institutional design
Macro level: Governance
Meso level: Coordination
Micro
MicroMicro:Agency
• Macro – level: all relevant ‘processes of regulation coordination and control’• Meso – coordination, necessary to define areas pushing for
institutional change • Micro – social and biophysical systems under-represented or mis-
represented - ‘crafting of institutions’ required
Case study: Piloting the Catchment-Based Approach (CaBA)
• 2011 Defra launched a ‘catchment based approach’ - focus on the ‘management of land and water in a coordinated and sustainable way’
• Upper Thames catchment – the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group South West (FWAG SW) is the local host – created a multi-stakeholder committee to take forward an
integrated approach – ‘collective development of a PES scheme’
Decision to consider PES
• Thames Water has no wish to be ‘regulator’– But could suggest banning Metaldehyde
• Only partial knowledge of Metaldehyde– How it behaves ‘in the field’– What actions reduce concentrations
• Thames Water will not fund PES on their own– Existing partnership are willing to explore PES
Thames River Basin
Upper Thames catchment
Cotswold PES Partnership
• Sellers – farmers involved at start, data input• Beneficiaries/Buyers
– Private sector (Thames Water, Ecotricity)
– Local communities (develop and benefit from)
– Public Sector (Env. Agency and Nat. England)• Facilitators – making links and contacts• Researchers – gather evidence & framework
Approach• Farmer on farm (data)
– Nitrate, Phosphate and Ammonia + field diary
• TW/UWE (data)
– Metaldehyde, pesticides• Catchment sensitive
Farming personnel – soils• Joint discussion of data• Agree way forward
– management options
– knowledge gaps
What has been agreed so far...
Multiple sellers
and multiple buyers
– A ‘Many to
Many’ PES
What has been agreed so far...A layering of services - rather than one ES
Paying for what?
• Not the status quo or passive activity
• Positive impact – What is this? – long lasting – time frame – 20 to 25 yrs?
• Payment by input or outcomes (or both)
• Certainty for buyer/beneficiary (required)
Where are we now?
• Need more detail to increase certainty• Options to take forward:
– Introduce approved soil management practice
– Specific management interventions
– Add energy production component to arable rotation
– Influencing (Metaldehyde) application management
• Sellers install and researchers/buyers test• Discuss results and fine tune
Remaining challenges...
• Including Soil (a slow variable) in the PES• Deepening testing with more interventions
– Providing certainty for buyer/beneficiaries– Providing viability for range of sellers
• Developing robust framework– Separating one ES is difficult– need a systems approach
• Identify ‘benefits’ of stakeholder engagement– Democracy, coordination, environmental effect
Key findings so far... implications for commons governance• Scoping to identify assets/beneficiaries
– Provides basis for partnership
• Highly skilled facilitation is key– Developing trust, enabling engagement– Shared problem solving
• High reward for integrating local knowledge• Participation could change institutions
– Assist move from sector to territorial approach
Collective action at the micro level
• Changes initiated by participation in a shared perspective
• Flexibility important as the local context varies
• Use of existing structures viewed both positively (local knowledge) and negatively (reinforcing exclusion)
• The local context:- makes it more attractive for some groups to engage than others
Participants in the Upper Thames pilot study
Interest area Number Type of organisation involved
Water Companies 1 Thames Water (private water company)
Conservation NGOs 2 Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, Cotswold Water Park
Other Government Agency 2 Natural England, Highways Authority
Local River’s Trust 1 Cotswold Rivers Trust
Farmer/landowner 2 National Farmers Union, CLA and individual farmers
Local Authorities 3 County, Borough and District representation
Fishing/angling 0 Linked through Rivers Trust
Economy regeneration 1 Cotswold Canal Trust
Woodland/forestry 0 Asked but not attended
Water recreation 0 Although part of CWPT remit
Higher Education 1 The local university
National Park & similar 2 Statutory protected landscapes
Other water authorities 0
Catchment ‘environmental services’ as common resources
Direct• Water quality/purification• Groundwater re-charge• Flood mitigation• Erosion mitigation
Indirect• Carbon sequestration (soil and veg. management)• Biodiversity (aquatic, soil, and habitat)