Where’s the ‘stake’ for involving stakeholders in catchment management? John Powell and Chris Short Countryside and Community Research Institute University of Gloucestershire
Nov 18, 2014
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)