XIVth IWRA World Water Congress

XIVth IWRA World Water Congress: "XIVth IWRA World Water Congress
DATE: September 25-29, 2011 - VENUE: Porto de Galinhas / Recife, PE, Brazil

Goals
The World Water Congress will highlight emerging drivers of water resources management including climate change; population growth, urban expansion and demographic changes; economic development; water quality degradation, and ecosystem water requirements including to mantain biodiversity. Each of these will alter the way water is managed; together, they will require fundamentally new priorities for technology and infrastructure, management and policy, allocation and pricing, laws and institutions, and above all a new future outlook for water resources professionals.

- Sent using Google Toolbar"

The Watershed Approach

Cohen, A. and Davidson, S. 2011. An examination of the watershed approach: Challenges, antecedents, and the transition from technical tool to governance unit. Water Alternatives 4(1): 1-14

This article completed a review of the published research regarding watershed approaches to water governance.  Included here is the review of the five major challenges they identified as "boundary choice, accountability, public participation, and watersheds’ asymmetries with 'problem-sheds' and 'policy-sheds'" (Cohen & Davidson 2011, p. 1).  This article expands on this review to suggest the watershed approach to these problems have evolved from the watershed technical tool transition into a policy instrument.  They suggest the watershed should remain a tool for analysis of the water systems and not also a governance tool with Integrated Water Resource Management.

Beginning with the five major challenges, Cohen & Davidson define each with references to the related literature supporting their assertions.  Each will be listed here with the specific references they mentioned.  The first regards the problems with watershed boundaries being incongruent with:

• other natural systems boundaries (Griffin, 1999)
• ecosystems (Omernik and Bailey, 1997; Mollinga et al., 2007)
• airsheds (Jaworski et al., 1997; Paerl et al., 2002)/.
• groundwater flow (Winter et al., 2003)
• boundary defined as political act (Blomquist and Schlager, 2005)

Accountability issues become critical for decision making with regards to water permitting, regulations and other watershed basin specific issues.  Political jurisdictions rarely align with watersheds.  Thus, the issues and related references Cohen & Davidson define here included:

• government participants responding to their jurisdictionally defined electorate (Salles and Zelem, 1998; Sneddon 2002)
• failed democracy has "led to elitist policies that have benefits for only the few" (Fischer, 1993)

Public participation issues are equally as problematic as these articles noted these specific references:

• "One important political reality is that states do not much like sharing power" (Warner 2007)
• higher orders of government have not loosened their grip on their decision-making power and local groups have not been empowered through the devolution process (Norman and Bakker 2009)

The next critical issue discussed by Cohen & Davidson involved the "problem-sheds" which they defined as "geographic area that is large enough to encompass the issues but small enough to make implementation feasible (Griffin, 1999)."  Here they brought out the issues about how the "problem-shed" is often significantly different than the "watershed."  They referred to the many problems that might affect an area, including social and economical, which usually stretch far beyond the normal limits of a watershed.  "For example, individuals may not relate to or identify with a watershed boundary (Brun and Lasserre, 2006). Grigg (2008) argues that the watershed approach presents false boundaries for decision-making since watersheds are essentially non-economic or social units" (Cohen & Davidson 2011, p. 4).

This discussion similarly leads to the issues Cohen & Davidson define as the "Policy-shed."  Once again they claimed that regulation issues are not feasible within the watershed since these basins never match national or municipal jurisdictions.  Therefore, rules applied to one area are not equally applied to all the area.  Or more often, as they noted in their review "'regional, provincial, federal, and international bodies may have different authorities in a given watershed' (Hoover et al., 2007). This scalar mismatch results in policy implementation occurring in a largely fragmented and uncoordinated manner (Schlager and Blomquist, 2000)" (Cohen & Davidson 2011, p. 5).  Many of these issues can lead to turf-wars. land disputes and other issues.  They continue by claiming their are appropriate times and places for watershed  applications, specifically for technical analysis where this framework is suitable as in engineering and hydrology.

Cohen & Davidson then discuss the evolution of watersheds as a mapped area to explore flood control, irrigation and power development with dams.  This paradigm was later reframed in the 1950s to include more about human use with the development of the concept of a Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) also primarily based on watersheds.  Further, they presented the "reinvention and re-emergence of IWRM in the early 1990s included a broadened scope to include both natural and human components (Jønch-Clausen and Fugl, 2001), largely due to the increasing recognition of the need to integrate economic, social, and natural resources under a single framework (GWP, 2000)."

Thus the IWRM became more common in the governance and review of watersheds internationally.  This shift allowed IWRM to become more of a governance form beyond only the engineering and hydrology applications as a study tool.  This technical transition from engineering tool to governance was the critical issue Cohen & Davidson explored with their key points of "boundary choice, accountability, public participation, and watersheds’ asymmetries with 'problem-sheds' and 'policy-sheds'" become critical.  They give an example where IWRM encourage active involvement of stakeholders in the watershed, which complicates decisions which a single municipality might have made previously.

Thus Cohen & Davidson conclude with recommending that the selection or the watershed as a governance boundary should be a careful choice.  They encourage it whenever there is already a hydrologic challenge with a strong governance structure in place.

Adaptive Water Governance

Huitema, D., E. Mostert, W. Egas, S. Moellenkamp, C. Pahl-Wostl, and R. Yalcin. 2009.  Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecology and Society 14(1): 26.

Huitema, et. al, included an analysis of literature reviewing watershed governance.  The review discussed the techniques used by professionals to create watershed management organizations which are becoming more and more prevalent in the industry of water systems.  This analysis explored the reviews published about different techniques for collaboration and governance..  The research centered on answering three main questions:

1. Do the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management resonate with the (water) governance literature?
2. Are these requirements feasible and effective —can they be adopted in practice, do they deliver environmental improvements, and why or why not?
3. What are the most salient questions for further research concerning these institutional requirements?

A clear issue that came up regarded the disparity between government boundaries and the associated watershed boundaries.  Watershed basin boundary lines often include multiple jurisdictions which may not agree or work together on existing issues already.  For example, one of the studies they reviewed (Conca et al. 2006:271–282) found that "many agreements do not include all states in a basin and that transboundary agreements are concentrated in basins with a tradition of cooperation."  Thus, they found very little evidence to support the "river-basin" approach for developing watershed management plans.

Fundamentally, the issue with new "watershed" focused plans, organizations and management is that the existing political structures already have established priorities and procedures.  These groups have a vested interest in their processes which provide security and comfort to those involved.  Adding another authority or requiring existing groups to agree to other priorities can create problems. 

The critical issues found for watershed management development include "collaboration in a polycentric governance system, public participation, an experimental approach to resource management, and management at the bioregional scale."  There is strong support of polycentric governance however, there is also high transactions costs and issues of true democratic processes beyond the existing political regimes.  Public participation has been shown to be very positive and supportive of the processes but not always feasible economically or politically.

The experimental approach has been shown to be sound in the literature, while usually only in small scale applications.  Thus, for watersheds this approach is not feasible, since these basins are usually so large.  The bioregional scale is appropriate and effective for water issues while the strong leadership necessary proves very challenging for these polycentric governance systems.  Huitema, et. al, defined a multitude of issues requiring further research were defined:

1. How to facilitate collaboration in polycentric governance settings, resolve or prevent coordination problems, foster trust, and keep transaction costs manageable, while ensuring democratic legitimacy?
2. How to organize practical public participation in polycentric settings, including participation in any experiments that may be undertaken or any other research, and how to organize a follow-up to the participation?
3. [How to establish] the effectiveness or the ineffectiveness of the different institutional prescriptions[?]
4. How to organize experiments in polycentric settings and promote an “experimental approach” to management that recognizes our limited understanding of socioecological systems and that maximizes learning from experience?
5. How to implement the bioregional approach for water management and cope with the multiplicity of relevant natural, social, and administrative boundaries?
6. How to manage transitions toward adaptive (co-)management and how to ensure that transitions are going in the right direction?
7. Moreover, we think that this theoretical work should not be undertaken as a stand-alone project, but in conjunction with empirical work on practical applications of adaptive management. This can improve the practical relevance of the theory and ensure that it does not remain only a theory.

Uncertainties in International Water Treaties

Drieschova, Alena; Fischhendler, Itay and Giordano, Mark (2011) The role of uncertainties in the design of international water treaties: an historical perspective. Climatic Change. 105:387–408 DOI 10.1007/s10584-010-9896-4

The initial point of disparity is the significant difference between political boundaries and watershed basin boundaries.  This included questions about watershed basin boundaries themselves.  The issue was more about the human interpretation beyond the factual science involved.  The problems with interpretation created issues for governance and operation beyond the political structures.   These uncertainties inbred in the system made agreements for management and future direction difficult.  Thus, progression to agreement for management over water systems that are naturally in flux became extremely difficult. 

More specifically,  "the dangers of resource degradation, water scarcity and of an inequitable distribution of the resource" create such a level of uncertainty where treaty design and implementation becomes questionable.  Thus, the final ratification and subsequent effectiveness of such a treaty becomes even more unlikely. 

Cash Crops Under Glass and Up on the Roof

New York Times;(Late Edition (East Coast)).; New York, N.Y.: May 19, 2011.  pg. B.5

This article discusses the seemingly sudden convergence of intelligent design, hydroponic technologies, greenhouse structures and consumer desire for fresh, locally produced organic vegetables.  A local entrepreneur in Canada created a 30,000 square foot greenhouse on a buildings vacant roof.  Lufa Farms is now selling directly to consumers through their new co-op in Montreal, Canada.

The article discusses similar designs including vertical gardens being developed in skyscrapers.  Another farm built a greenhouse on a grocery store roof in order to sell produce below.  This provides fresh produce and reduces spoilage and transportation costs.  For example;

TerraSphere, a unit of Converted Organics with offices in Surrey, British Columbia, and Boston, designs and builds vertical farm systems and sells its lettuce and spinach through Choices Markets, an organic grocery chain in western Canada.

The critical question becomes whether they can be profitable.  The cost for greenhouse construction on a roof can be $1-$2 million per acre while the operation and maintenance can be considerably less.  Greenhouses do not require tractors or heavy equipment to farm, nor do they need as much fertilizers and pesticides.  The hydroponic systems function without any soil at all.  Currently, New York city is estimated to have 14,000 acres of rooftop space available for farming, which could grown enough produce to feed as many as 20 million people.

BrightFarms has contracted with supermarkets to build multiple greenhouses.  They found with the higher gas costs that the greenroofs' produce usually requires little or no travel.  The reduced travel often drops prices 50%.   Thus, the CEO of BrightFarms, Paul Lightfoot, anticipates "$100 million in revenues by the end of 2015 and $1 billion by the end of 2020."

Why Not the Humanities

Nussbaum, Martha C.. Not for Profit : Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton University Press, 2010. p 7. Copyright © 2010. Princeton University Press. All rights reserved. 

Martha starts off talking about how the world's education systems are moving to drop art and history since they are useless for the profit driven economy.  Everyone is focused on the science and technical education and nothing else.  I'm reminded of the quote from American philosopher George Santayana (1863-1952) who said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  Thus getting rid of the history classes will make it easy for the power that be, no one needs to be creative, but only keep doing the "same-old same-old."

In a democracy that is perfect for the elite who want more war mongering, more greed and more sickness and disparity to promote the first two.  Why else would they promote the machine education to create more mechanical sheeple who engage in production and vegetation.  How appropriate to see Martha go on to issues of the soul, where people are programed to see objects and means to their ends and not people any more.  This goes along with the latin phrase: divide et impera: "Divide and conquer" (from Philip II of Macedon, father of Alexander the Great)


First it was the development of "divorce" to destroy the nuclear family.  No family then, there is no stability or social structure at all.  How can a community develop without families?  And if there is no sound community then the "Holy Box of Oz" can insure the little sheeple do what they are told to do, just vegetate in front of the holy box:

(((time to 630 is perfect on this video)))
Not my cup of tea...  Martha states this clearly:

"These abilities are associated with the humanities and the arts: the ability to think critically; the ability to transcend local loyalties and to approach world problems as a 'citizen of the world;' and, finally, the ability to imagine sympathetically the predicament of another person"

She goes on to discuss how democracy can not survive without full citizens.  This is really so true.  For decades the US has survived, but it's not a democracy.  People still believe it is, but it really isn't.  Votes are collected and counted, but also separated and burned.  Now it's done with technology, while when the counties in Florida first started it was standard procedure to have a dumpster burn on election night.  That has happened for generations here, and everyone in the system knew it, and laughed about it.  "Dam Yankee's can't get elected here."  Course the Bush Gore fiasco made it obvious to everyone across the world, but still nothing was done about it.  SO what can you do?  Go to court?  But all the judges are appointed or elected too, do you think they will allow anyone to rock the boat they are in?

Not likely. But again Martha in this article does make the clear statement that "cultivated capacities for critical thinking and reflection are crucial in keeping democracies alive and wide awake" which is precisely my point about sheeple - - lost people following each other around, not very conscious, no idea where they are going, but content and happy to just be sheep vegetating in front of the boob tube!

Making Watershed Partnerships Work

Leach, William D. and Pelkey, Neil W.  Making Watershed Partnerships Work: A Review Of The Empirical Literature. Journal Of Water Resources Planning And Management / November/December 2001 378-385

This article reviewed 37 empirical literature studies on watershed partnerships between 1990-1999 within the developed English-speaking Nations of Australia, US and Canada.  These studies identified 210 "lessons learned" which were grouped for review into 28 thematic categories that were then divided in 4 main factors for analysis which included:  1—resources and scope (eigenvalue 3.5; 24%) 2—Flexibility and Informality (eigenvalue 3.1; 21%) 3—ADR theory variables (eigenvalue 4.9; 33%) 4—IAD theory variables (eigenvalue 2.5; 17%).

The two main goals were first to assess the partnership policies used and second to make recommendation for new partnerships.  As many know in this field, the US National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA: 42 USC §4321 et. seq 1969) initiated the requirement for Environmental Impact Assessments for all major federal actions.  This included a minimal level of public input.  As other research has shown the engaged citizens improve the community support of major water works projects (Borton, Warner, Wenrich, Havlick, & Frost 1970).  In this case the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) first sponsored a “groundbreaking” study to explore public involvement in New York’s Susquehanna River watershed in 1969.  Similarly, this current article pointed out that watershed partnerships have been more and more common in the last decade.

28 thematic categories
 The article defined Watershed Partnerships as "assemblies of stakeholders who periodically convene to discuss or negotiate the management of streams, rivers, or watersheds (Sommarstrom in Born and Genskow 1999)" (Leach and Pelkey 2001).  Such meetings can be highly formal or informal providing only general guidance and direction to the more formal legislative bodies.  Partnerships have been shown to engage stakeholders in active communication and build consensus to avoid costly delays and litigation (Manring 1998).

The article continues with listing several other major studies which determined other key facts regarding partnerships.  Leach and Pelkey (2001) references included:

• watershed partnerships distribution and function (University of Colorado 1996; Kenney 1999)
• social and environmental factors that promote new partnership formation (Leach and Pelkey 2001a)
• threats and opportunities that partnerships create for representative democracy (Kenney 2000)
• watershed groups involving a shared common vision from the start (Cook 2000)
• partnerships as an egalitarian alternative to agency-dominated management (Griffin 1999; Kenney 1999). 
• watershed partnerships  as combinations of theory and evidence (Born and Sonzogni 1995; Margerum and Born 1995; Toupal and Johnson 1998; Bellamy et al. 1999; and Griffin 1999)

For Leach and Pelkey current analysis the criteria for selection of studies to review included:

1. Empirical studies
2. Analytical studies with factors for success, including data.
3. Only in Australia, Canada, or the United States.
4. only long-term "Partnerships" with the planning and/or implementation of projects.
5. ‘‘Watershed’’ is defined liberally to include natural issues at the scale of watersheds or ecosystems.

Another, key element discussed in the article was that all the selected studies included measures of the partnership success based on written stakeholder perceptions, surveys or other actual partnership activity documentation.  However, none of the studies included an analysis of any possible socioeconomic or ecological watershed impacts.

However, Leach and Pelkey analysis of the existing research was substantial. I have summaries the top ten identified "lessons learned" for "watershed partnership success" include:

1	Adequate funding	62.2%
2	Effective leadership	59.5%
3	Limited scope	43.2%
4	Inclusive diverse participation	43.2%
5	Creative, cooperative & committed participants	43.2%
6	Good interpersonal skills & mutual trust	43.2%
7	Begin with completing low conflict tasks	37.8%
8	Active professional staff participation	35.1%
9	Well-defined decision rules or process rules	32.4%
10	Emphasized scientific information or understanding importance	29.7%

These lessons learned provide one dimension of how to create watershed partnership successes (see 10-20 below).  However, to get a better understanding of how these different issues affect each other, and how certain factors compliment each other, the authors completed a factor analysis.

4 main factors for analysis
To begin this review the "factor analysis" procedures used include:

Factor analysis is a commonly used "exploratory technique" (Harman 1976). The analysis was carried out using "Sorensen’s similarity index" (Greig-Smith 1983).  "MVSP software" calculated Sorensen’s index. "NCSS software" performed the factor analysis with principal axis extraction and varimax rotation. [[[direct quotes to look up and link]]]

The factors are defined:
Factor 1 - Resources and Scope - This first factor accounted for 24% of the variance.  This included resources such as time, legislative support, agency support, funding and complimentary other resources.  Gordon and Jones (1998); Born and Genskow (1999) claim hydrologic watersheds are best because corresponding to the "problem shed" which is contrary to Thomas (1999) who claimed large watershed resulted in too many issues and distance barriers to stakeholders.

Factor 2 - Flexibility and Informality - This factor accounted for 21% of the variance, including issues of operation rules, authority, federal, state and local balancing as well as other governance and decision making processes.  Studies indicated that strength lies in the partnerships ability to provide a "flexible, informal, and relatively egalitarian alternative to traditional forms of resource management"

Factor 3 - Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) - This factor resulted in 33% variance, which included the levels of effective communication, well-defined rules, consensus building, open membership with clear membership rules, high levels of trust, manageable goals and effective leadership.

Factor 4 - This factor had a 17% variance using the IAD framework of a "rational factor model" with well-defined rules and transparent stakeholder rights and  responsibilities.

These factors do represent how some studies specifically used the ADR and IAD methods, but over all the final conclusions for successful partnerships seemed a bit elementary.  First they determined that funding and management were critical to success.  This included that a skilled facilitator was a first step for successful partnerships, and this improved with a facilitator who was neutral to the process, followed clearly defined rules with free sharing of information.  Next in importance was the creative adn cooperative stakeholders ready to compromise and find consensus instead of simply fight for the party-line.  This lead to a recommendation that future research explore removing "intransigent members without creating new problems."


Reerences

Born, S. M., and Genskow, K. D. (1999). ‘‘Exploring the watershed approach: Critical dimensions of state-local partnerships.’’ The Four Corners Watershed Innovators Initiative Final Rep., River Network, Portland, OR

Borton, T. E., Warner, K. P., Wenrich, J. W., Havlick, S. W., & Frost, J. (1970). The Susquehanna Communication-Participation Study: Selected Approaches to Public Involvement in Water Resources Planning. Alexandria, Virginia: U. S. Army Engineer Institute for Water Resources.

Manring, N. (1998). ‘‘Collaborative resource management: Organizational benefits and individual costs.’’ Admin. & Soc., 30(3), 274–290.