Social learning for better water management – insights from the EU HarmoniCOP project

1. Social learning for better water management – insights from the EU HarmoniCOP project ”Learning together to manage together”improving participation in water management IAIA 2007 Seoul Bert Enserink TPM – policy analysis

2. Why public participation in RBMP ? • RBMP is complex multi-actor issue • Interdependence • Conflicting interests • Conflicting knowledge/uncertainty • Need for joint solutions that are technically sound and implemented in practice and in time! • Lack of experience and absent institutions in newly accessing EU countries (and some old EU countries too) Objectives of PP: • Collaboration • Build trust • Common view • Resolve conflicts • Joint solutions • Better results

3. The public participation requirements of the Water Framework Directive • Encourage active involvement in the implementation of the WFD (Art 14.1) • The WFD requires three rounds of written consultation • The reactions of the public need to be collected and considered seriously • On request, access has to be given to background information • Additional forms of pp are not required but may be needed for reaching its ambitious environmental goals and ensuring its success.

4. Social learning approach // PPBPP • Recognition of stakeholder interdependence • Interaction between all stakeholders • A minimum degree of openness and trust • Critical self-reflection by all on their goals and interests, assumptions about the system to be managed and how their actions affect others • Development of shared problem perception • Critical assessment of potential solutions • Joint decision-making based on reciprocity and commitment • Arrangements to promote implementation

5. HarmoniCOP Handbook on PP in RBM Free download at: http://harmonicop.info

6. How to get started – general principles • Openness – relevant, committed, transparent • Protection of core values • Speed • Substance – role of expertise and alternatives

7. Protection of core values • The process should respect and not threaten the livelihood and identity of the different stakeholders • Stakeholders should commit themselves to the process • The process should offer participants an exit option

8. Speed • The process should create prospects of gain and incentives for cooperation • Third parties and external developments may be used to speed it up • Conflicts should be transferred to the periphery of the process (e.g. to a special group so as not to threaten progress)

9. How to start – who are the stakeholders you should involve?

10. How to start – who are the stakeholders you should involve? • Those with resources that improve the quality of the decision • Those who possess resources necessary for implementing the decision • Those who can block the decision-making or implementation • Those who do not necessarily possess the necessary resources or blocking power but have a morel right as they will be affected • Those who need to be involved because of legal requirements

11. How to start - Choosing methods and tools

12. Use methods and tools to make information accessible Transparent choice Share control on data, methods and tools with stakeholders Build on local knowledge Allow flexibility/adapt Use a variety of methods and tools Use tools to gain system knowledge and understanding Record and document activities and outcomes How to start - Choosing methods and tools

13. How to start - Choosing methods and tools

15. How to manage – ground rules(Bruijn, Heuvelhof & In’t Veld, 2002) • General rules • not binding outcomes, respect and behavior • Entrance and Exit rules • after rounds, after consultation • Handling Information • access and confidentiality • Rules for parallel processes • interference, judicial steps • Engagement with the press • restrictions

16. Handbook / Downloads • Free of Charge • Available in: • English • German • Spanish • Italian • Dutch • French At: www.harmonicop.info

17. THANK YOU!

18. A good practice example: ABC Delfland

19. How to get started – who are the stakeholders you should involve? • All local and regional authorities/govn bodies • Province • Municipalities • Organized stakeholder groups: • Nature & Recreational groups • Farming & Warehousing • Neighboring waterboards • Individual farmers – ‘victims’ of flooding • General public

20. ABC Delfland, Drainage and Water Storage Capacity “to achieve a construction of the water system and manage the water system of Delfland in such a way that a societal sound safety level is achieved against acceptable (societal) costs.” (Resource Analysis, 2000) For reaching this goal the Waterboard Delfland is not looking for technical solutions alone, but it is also trying to find spatial solutions for the (temporary) storage of water. (Resource Analysis, 2000)

21. Phase 1 PP activities • interviews with different stakeholders by independent advisor • workshop to present outcomes to all the interviewees, administrators, civil servants and representatives of different stakeholder groups. • two meetings with people from two different communities who suffered from the water problems. • several bilateral discussion meetings with municipalities (7) and the neighbouring waterboards • three meetings with the sounding board group

22. Phase 2 PP activities • Three workshops to discuss the ten alternatives and get preferences • elected members of the Waterboard • mayors and aldermen • civil servants, sounding board group members, farmers interest group and the Province together • Seven public information meetings to create support for the plans and to win back the trust of the people • all the contacts of the network, inhabitants and media

23. Outcome: social learning • Joint development and ownership of the problem • Joint sense of urgency • Joint decision-making based on reciprocity and commitment • Pragmatic problem-solving approach with extensive communication and consultation of stakeholders was effective • Stakeholder preferences and knowledge was taken serious

24. Why public participation in RBMP ?

25. Objectives of PP: Collaboration Build trust Common view Resolve conflicts Joint solutions Better results When to invest in PP? Different stakeholders depend on each other to reach their goals There is no agreement on the problems or solutions at stake The issues are important enough for the stakeholders to invest the necessary time (and therefore money) Social learning approach

26. Two phases & • Phase 1: analysis and search for possible solutions. • Phase 2: choosing a solution and making the solution and impacts of this solution as concrete as possible. • Deliberate choice to organise participation. • Knowledge exchange: local and historical versus system . • Obstruction power and legitimacy: cooperation and prevents lengthy appeal procedures. • Water surplus problems and their context are complex, forcing the Waterboard to co-operate with others (like municipalities, provinces, etc.)

28. How to get started?Complex decision-making: typology of problems(Hisschemoller ’93) ABC Delfland Technology, Policy and Management

29. How to get started:Complex problems and public involvement(Bruin & Porter, 2004) ABC Delfland • If structured: information • If unstructured: interactive analysis / active involvement • If ill-structured: values contested >> process for finding decision-making space: transparency and consultation • If moderately structured: knowledge contested >> extensive communication and consultation of stakeholders Technology, Policy and Management

30. Formal required (EIS) PP activities • Public display was obligatory. • The so-called 'Inspraakverordening' gives inhabitants and organised stakeholders the chance to react to the plans of the Waterboard by communicating their views and opinions. • Only two appeals?!