piloting adaptive catchment management through …2012/07/02 · co-investigators: kevin hiscock,...

Piloting adaptive catchment management through stakeholder deliberation and co-production of

knowledge

RELU is a joint UK Research Councils

programme, co-sponsored by Defra

and SEERAD) http://www.relu.ac.uk/

Catchment Change Network

International Conference,

Lancaster University,

26th June 2012

Laurence Smith, Alex Inman and Tobias Krueger (contact: [email protected])

Project Principals and Partners

Principal investigator: Laurence Smith, SOAS

Co-investigators: Kevin Hiscock, UEA and Keith Porter, Cornell Law School

Other institutions:

University of East Anglia; University of Kent The Westcountry Rivers Trust Broads Authority and the Upper Thurne Working Group The Association of Rivers Trusts Cornell University; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; Delaware County Action Plan; the Upper Susquehanna Coalition; and the Hudson River Estuary Programme The South East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership City of Aalborg, Denmark Drinking Water Company Drenthe and Drenthe Province, Netherlands OOWV Water Supplier, Lower Saxony, Germany

Research Team:

Christina Aue; Alastair Bailey; David Benson; Patricia Bishop; Dylan Bright; Marco Civitareale; Hadrian Cook; Jonathan Hillman; Alex Inman; Andrew Jordan; Andrea Kelly; Tobias Krueger; Mike Lovegreen; Jennifer Morley; Mary Jane Porter; Gitte Ramhøj ; Diane Tarte; Nico van der Moot.

August 7, 1933 – June 12, 2012

…for "her analysis of economic governance, especially the

commons.

Outline

Characterising the catchment management

problem

Our RELU funded research

Piloting approaches in the UK

Conclusions

The catchment management

problem:

How to protect and manage water resources in a

catchment in which people can live, work and play?

A complex problem?

A ‘wicked’ problem?

• complex

• dynamic, uncertain

• diverse legitimate values

and interests

• no definitive problem

formulation

• many externalities

• multiple trade-offs

• intractable for a single

organisation (Rittel & Webber, 1973) (Ludwig, 2001)

‘Wicked’ problems:

societal

uncertainty

technical

uncertainty

wicked

problems

easy

problems

• inter-related problems of water

quality, over abstraction and flood

risk

• pollutant sources are numerous,

dispersed, with multiple &

uncertain pathways

• problems are multi-sectoral

• monitoring and regulation are

relatively costly

• polluting activities produce

food, rural jobs, tourist income

etc.

• how to share costs?

• how to capture benefits & fund

improvements?

Catchment management

challenges

Control of diffuse pollution needs a locally ‘tailored’ mix of all measures. How is this best designed and delivered?

Hierarchy of measures for land use-

based pollution range through:

• ownership change/land acquisition

• land use change (income foregone/deferred) e.g afforestation

• lower intensity (income foregone) e.g.

reduced stocking density

• capital investment e.g. increased slurry

storage, fencing streams

•‘win-wins’ e.g. soil testing and nutrient

management

• baseline regulation (X-compliance, NVZs)

designations/

conservation

reserves

PES?

agri-environmental

schemes/incentives

CSF

voluntary action

needs enforcement

increasing cost

and conflict

REGULATION

“Polluter pays” Cross Compliance

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones

Works but

needs

regulation and

enforcement

by a cost-

effective

regulator

INCENTIVES

“Provider is paid” Environmental Schemes

Paid Ecosystem Services

Quality Assurance Schemes

Works but needs

institutional and

market development

(and an ethical

broker?)

WIN-WIN

“Provider saves” Cost-Benefit advice

Best Practice farming

Works but

requires

consistent

trusted

engagement

by technical

providers

Coordination requires a

catchment scale vision

(and a spatial plan?)

and collaborative

governance

Complementarities of policy approaches

Source: L. Couldrick, WRT and L. Smith, SOAS

Other catchment management concerns

A mix beyond the capacity of

one organisation, needs

collaboration and coordination

• household septic systems

• sewage treatment works

• soil loss in construction

• stream corridor management

• restoration of river morphology and

wetlands

• spatial planning and economic

development

• education and awareness raising

• research, monitoring, modelling

• road runoff

• urban runoff

• water supply

• other waste

management

A ‘wicked’ diagnosis for catchment

management leads to recognition of the

need for :

• a broad societal response by civil society, local and

national agencies and scientists

• a ‘twin-track’ (analytic-deliberative) adaptive management

approach

• decentralised collaborative management and partnership

working (multi-level and polycentric governance)

• Explicit recognition and understanding of this can inform

policy, process and governance design.

Strand A: 2 UK case study catchments, Upper Tamar, Upper Thurne

Strand B: comparative

analysis of international

catchment management

programmes

Catchment

management

template

Identify stakeholders, partnerships,

issues and goals

Characterise and understand the

catchment: use decision support tools

Finalize goals and test management

scenarios with stakeholders, assess

physical, economic and social impacts

Learn lessons for

working with partners &

stakeholders, analysis,

monitoring, governance

and policy

Assess implementation options and

possible governance arrangements

Project scope and activities

Piloting adaptive catchment

management in the Thurne & Tamar, UK

An adaptive management

cycle for catchment planning

and process implementation

Source: US EPA Handbook

2005

Adaptive catchment management pilot Thurne catchment, Norfolk

Tamar

Thurne

1st workshop, May 2008:

problem framing,

identified key issues

Data presentation & ground-

truthing, identified need for

good communication tools

2nd workshop, Nov 2008:

Report Card, graphical

model of problems &

solutions, WFD targets

Adaptive catchment management pilot Thurne catchment, Norfolk

Tamar

Thurne

3rd workshop, Dec 2009:

testing model & interface,

ground-truthing

Meeting with farmers, Feb 2010:

land use data ground-truthing

4th workshop, Mar 2010:

scenarios, governance

1st workshop, May 2008:

problem framing,






Report Card, graphical

model of problems &

solutions, WFD targets

Adaptive catchment management pilot Tamar catchment, Devon/Cornwall

Tamar

Thurne




1st workshop, Jun 2008:

problem framing,



WFD targets, sceptical of

model

Adaptive catchment management pilot Tamar catchment, Devon/Cornwall

Tamar

Thurne




1st workshop, Jun 2008:

problem framing,



WFD targets, sceptical of

model

4th workshop, Jun 2010:

up-scaling of scenario &

cost, governance

Meeting with farmers, Mar 2010:

land use & management data

ground-truthing, testing model

3rd workshop, Apr 2010:

testing model & interface,

ground-truthing, scenarios

Adaptive catchment management Adaptive modelling

“Good” water quality may be delivered by a mix

of regulations, incentives & voluntary actions

Interested citizens, conservation groups,

farmers, tourism industry, water companies,

local to national government, environment

agencies, …

Catchments are complex – so we need models that

help us characterise them, set water quality goals

& identify the best mix of actions

As decisions are (partly) based on models, all

involved need to accept the model results




agencies, …





agencies, …

Observations

Models

Evaluation


Perceptual modelling stage Revision of graphical representation

Effective

rainfall

Sewage

treatment

Land

use

Land

management

Water

abstraction

Bacteria Phosphorus

Sediment

Heavy

metals Nitrogen

Soil Slope

High/low

flow

“After living and farming in

the area for so many

years this has brought

home to me for the first

time the importance of the

pumps in the Thurne.”

“It does

provide a good

means to capture

local understanding

of the catchment.”

Perceptual modelling stage Revision of graphical representation

Effective

rainfall

Sewage

treatment

Land

use

Land

management

Water

abstraction

Bacteria Phosphorus

Sediment

Heavy

metals Nitrogen

Soil Slope

High/low

flow

“Causes & effects

seem obvious – is

a model

necessary?”

“Resources should

be spent on action

– not modelling!”

“I don’t want a

model so detailed

that people can

point at me as the

source of

pollution!”

“I already know

how to farm best!”

Perceptual modelling stage Lessons

However, it was agreed that models can lend scientific credibility to

catchment management & serve as a basis for scenarios & cost-

benefit analysis

Stakeholders advised that the model must not neglect the effects of

sewage treatment works, septic tanks, soils, land management &

roads

This created new challenges as the understanding of some of these

processes is incomplete and data are limited – the stakeholders

drove the agenda at this point

Formal modelling stage Review of model assumptions & limitations

Source Mobilisation Pathway

Septic tanks

Sewage treatment works

Phosphorus stripping

Land use & livestock

Land management

Roads & tracks

Rainfall

Soil

Slope

Land management

Rainfall

Soil

Slope

Land management

Roads & tracks

Net loss in rivers & lakes

Export Coefficients1, extended by farm practices & in-stream processes (SPARROW2)

1Johnes et al., 1996, JH 2 Smith et al., 1997, WRR

Formal modelling stage Lessons

The fact that the model looks at all sources of pollution, not just

agriculture, added to its credibility

Discussions evolved around explicit vs. implicit representations, the

dominance of some factors which justifies the exclusion of others &

how model limitations are accounted for in uncertainty estimates

Despite its limitations, the model can be claimed to be useful

because it makes best use of all available data & uncertainties are

quantified

Farmers appreciated the concept of probability & explained it to

others in non-scientific terms (collective learning)

“How on earth

could you have

come up with a

single number as a

result anyway?!”

Importance of local knowledge Land use & livestock distributions

Agricultural

census 2004

Local farmers

Permanent grass (ha) 19 19

Temporary grass (ha) 3 3

Rough grazing (ha) 3 3

Cereals (ha) 33 33

Root crops (ha) 16 16

Field vegetables (ha) 3 3

Oilseed rape (ha) 0 0

Woodland (ha) 2 2

Bare fallow (ha) 0 0

Cattle 158 300

Pigs 110 0

Sheep & goats 97 10

Poultry 35121 0

Importance of local knowledge “Top 12” farming practices & uptake

Local expert opinion Scientific expert opinion

Current uptake (%) P export reduction (% range)

Cultivate compacted tillage soils 30 25 35

Do not leave autumn seedbeds too fine 10 25 35

Avoid tramlines over winter 10 25 35

Loosen compacted soil layers in grassland fields 3 50 70

Build new livestock access tracks 30 10 10

Reduce field stocking rates when soils are wet 90 10 10

Integrate bag fertiliser and manure nutrient supply 90 4 4

Do not apply fertiliser, slurry & manure to high-risk

areas 90 27 40

Avoid spreading fertiliser, slurry & manure at high-risk

times 90 15 50

Increase the capacity of farm manure (slurry) stores 10 25 25

Minimise the volume of dirty water produced 30 5 5

Site solid manure heaps away from watercourses and

field drains 90 4 4

Procedural modelling stage Interactive scenario development

Proposed management plan costs for the upper Tamar

Sewage treatment works Capital cost (£) Annual cost (£)

P stripping for 1 mg P l-1 discharge; 90% stripping for 6 STWs serving >500 people 18,000,000 462,000

Cost per head (6 STWs, incl. tourists) 814 21

Cost per head (upper Tamar, incl. tourists) 623 16

Cost per head (South West Water customers, 1.6m 11 0.30

Domestic septic tanks Capital cost (£) Annual cost (£)

5% of septic tanks (277) replaced by contained cesspools and emptied to STWs (P stripped) 1,360,000 1,065,000

Cost per household (3 people on average) 4,900 3,840

Replacement by packaged STW 2,410,000 86,000

Cost per household 8,700 310

Farm management practices (BMPs) (increase in adoption) (per ha/farm cost) Capital cost (£) Annual cost (£)

Cultivate compacted tillage soils (30% to 80%) (£20 per ha, 20% arable) 16,500

Do not leave autumn seedbed too fine (10% to 80%) (£40 per ha, 20% arable) 46,000

Avoid tramlines over winter (10% to 80%) (£22.50 per ha, 20% cereals) 22,000

Loosen compacted soil layers in grassland fields (3% to 80%) (£43 per ha, 25% grass) 535,000

Build new livestock access tracks (30% to 80%) (£5,000 per dairy farm) 710,000

Increase the capacity of farm manure (slurry) stores (10% to 90%) (£21,260 per dairy farm) 5,545,000

Minimise the volume of dirty water produced (30% to 100%) (£15,250 per dairy farm) 3,160,000

Farm BMPs sub-total 9,415,000 619,500

Plan total 28,775,000 2,146,500

Co-production of models Conclusions

Modelling provided a platform for stakeholders to collaboratively

frame the scale and severity of the problem, and develop a

collective understanding of uncertainty

Stakeholders had the opportunity to model potential solutions to the

problem in real time, stimulating highly dynamic and engaged

discussion

Modelling allowed an appreciation of trade-offs to be developed.

Provision of indicative scenario costs provided all important

economic reality to the debate

The model became an explicit vehicle for stakeholders to

incorporate their knowledge within the problem solving

process, thereby stimulating ownership and trust in the outcomes

Co-production of models Conclusions

Co-production of models clarifies expectations, encourages

transparency & openness

Being explicit about uncertainties helps building trust

Measured data will always be limited – stakeholder (esp. farmer)

knowledge can plug important gaps & this encourages ownership

There remains issues of IP and authority. Who will govern the model

that is collectively produced?

And modelling will only add value if it is adapted and refined as

additional monitoring data becomes available. Ways must be found

to make this as inexpensive as possible

These points illustrate the substantive, normative and potential

instrumental benefits of stakeholder deliberation and co-production

of knowledge

Adaptive catchment management Future considerations

“Twin-track” (analytic-deliberative process) piloted successfully

Next stage? Roll-out of the process to the implementation stage in

the two pilot catchments to complement existing agency working

Ingredients:

Stakeholder engagement

Trusted local broker

Time & resources

Build and Maintain Partnerships

Engage Stakeholders

Characterize Catchment

Identify Problems

and Solutions

Set Goals

Prioritize Solutions

Design and

Planning

Implement Plan

Monitor Progress

Make Adjustments

Improve Plan

Key

Pathways

Evaluation

Deliberation

Science

• See the Catchment Management

Resources website:

http://www.watergov.org/

• Project video on RELU website

http://www.relu.ac.uk/events/Majorprogramm

eevents.htm

• Contact: Laurence Smith or Tobias

Krueger

[email protected]

[email protected]

Thank you for your attention.

Components of a catchment management

‘template’

An Adaptive Management Cycle

• the complexity, dynamics and

trade-offs of catchment management

require an adaptive management

approach

• and a ‘twin-track’ of deliberative

partner and stakeholder engagement

supported by targeted scientific

research

Source: US EPA Handbook 2005

www.healthywaterways.org

Components of a catchment management ‘template’ Governance

• Partnerships • cross-sectoral and multi-level collaboration and coordination based on

recognised responsibilities and duties

• Stakeholder engagement

• integrate environmental and public health criteria with economic and social

objectives, and policy

• enhance implementation with local knowledge, acceptance and ownership

• Locally led

• decision-making at the level appropriate to responsibilities for land and

water management, with provision for inter-locality cooperation and

coordination

• Transparency and accountability

• Funded – core (public) and from diverse sources

Components of a catchment management ‘template’ Capacity

• Locally accepted technical providers

• trusted experts and intermediaries to analyse, advise and mediate

• Comprehensive condition and threat assessments and planning

• ideally one integrated strategic plan to guide action plans, in accordance

with higher level regulation and policy directives

•Knowledge exchange

• synthesis and communication of information to decision makers, partners

and stakeholders through skilled intermediaries and communication and

decision-support tools

• Monitoring of performance and outcomes

• inherent to adaptive management, and to sustaining partner and

stakeholder engagement, and funding

• evaluation criteria to include environmental quality and sustainability,

cost effectiveness, and an accepted distribution of benefits and costs

piloting adaptive catchment management through …2012/07/02 · co-investigators: kevin hiscock,...

Documents