Stakeholders & Catchment Management - Where's the Stake?

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)