Tuesday, July 20, 2021
Environmentalists urge DeSantis to declare Red Tide emergency
ST. PETERSBURG — More than two dozen environmental organizations joined calls for Gov. Ron DeSantis to declare a state of emergency for the Tampa Bay area as Red Tide continues to leave dead fish along the coast and disrupt business across the region.
An executive order would help organize and finance Red Tide clean-up efforts, said a letter signed by 29 organizations and organized by the Center for Biological Diversity. The Ocean Conservancy sent a letter saying a statewide effort, rather than local governments scrambling to deal with the disaster, would help mitigate the catastrophe.
Florida is home to the majority of phosphate-mining operations in the United States — and the United States is the world's thirdleading producer of phosphate rock. Making matters worse, Florida also has the majority of the industry’s radioactive waste, phosphogypsum — one billion tons.
More than 1 billion tons of the radioactive waste are stored in 25 stacks scattered throughout Florida, perched precariously atop the Floridan aquifer — which supplies drinking water for 10 million people. There are 70 such stacks across the nation. These stacks are prone to sinkholes, breaches, and spills, and the industry struggles with how to deal with these risky radioactive mountains and the dire problems they cause.
More than half of all domestically sourced phosphate is mined in Florida, by an industry with a record of contaminating the environment through radioactive waste leakage and water pollution that threatens Florida's groundwater resources. Now there are plans to tear up more than 50,000 additional acres of central Florida with harmful strip-mining practices — and no plan to address the radioactive phosphogypsum stacks that have already been created.
Monday, July 19, 2021
Red Tide protesters gather at St. Pete Pier
Protesters had several demands, listed by Suncoast Surf Rider chair Thomas Paterek: declare a state of emergency for Tampa Bay; create a plan for closing Piney Point’s facilities; implement policies recommended by expert groups; stop phosphate mining in Florida; fix Florida’s infrastructure; move to clean energy; and make polluting companies pay for clean up.
The state allowed the release by property owner HRK Holdings because regulators feared a large, leaking reservoir was about to collapse and send a devastating flood into surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. That wastewater was dumped into the bay at Port Manatee and carried a lot of nitrogen with it.
Protesters drew attention to the Piney Point release as they marched Saturday. Neighbors Kathleen Bohrnsen and Aldo Della Sera, both 57, came from the Coquina Key waterfront neighborhood in St. Petersburg to show their support. Bohrnsen held a sign that said “Declare a State of EMERGENCY!!” while Della Sera held a sign that read “Prioritize the Health of Tampa Bay.”
Friday, June 18, 2021
Consistency Builds Trust
According to a 2019 study published by Harvard Business Review, consistency is one of the 3 elements of trust. If you are starting a PACEs initiative and you are wanting people to rally behind you, attend your events, share ideas with you, and meet and set goals together, you will need to demonstrate through your actions that people can trust you. The HBR article said that people trust someone as a leader who "walk the talk, honor commitments and keep promises, and follow through on commitments."
Practically, the way I see this working in a PACEs initiative, or any community coalition you may be starting, is to have:
- Steering or planning committee meetings at regular intervals
- Public-facing events at regular intervals
The steering/planning committee could meet every month, say, the second Tuesday of the month, and plan the course of action. These meetings need to stay regular so people build trust that they're going to happen as planned. The more they happen as planning, the more trust increases, and the more important things your coalition will be able to tackle together.
Sunday, June 3, 2018
Mining the Chat Groups for Truths
Sunday, May 20, 2018
Natural Health: A Comprehensive Guide to Living Healthy
- Agocs S. "Chiropractic’s Fight for Survival." Virtual Mentor. 2011;13(6),384-388.
Sunday, February 25, 2018
10 Qualities of A Game-Changer
- You understand that all life is connected. You see the human family, in all its diversity, as an integral component in the whole of the web of creation, and are committed to building a society that reflects and reveres the sacred and interconnected nature of all life.
- You stand for a sustainable, just and fulfilling future. You stand for and act from an informed vision that a sustainable, just and fulfilling future for all beings is urgent, possible and essential.
- You recognize that the universe is friendly. You recognize that the universe is friendly and that the evolutionary force that put the stars in motion is moving through us and is a dynamic, self-organizing process whose grace and guidance we can trust.
- You realize that we are called to be evolutionary activists. You realize that the human role and responsibility now is an evolutionary activist, intentionally engaging with the momentum of evolution to shape the future as it is being brought into being.
- You inquire deeply. You understand that the collective transformation of our society requires a completely new definition of what is possible in being human, and requires that we inquire deeply into questions such as: “Who am I, really?” and, “What is my relationship the the whole?”
- You recognize systems of power and privilege. You recognize that the social injustice and environmental exploitation in our world are not the “natural order of things,” but rather, are the outcome of intentionally-designed systems of power and privilege. These systems and structures resist change, and lead to further injustice, violence and suffering.
- You put forth a new story. You are able to discern the cultural stories that perpetuate inequity and concentrate power and privelege, and you live from and share new stories that create the paradigm for a just and sustainable future.
- You are no longer “food” for the system. Your actions and interactions move in the direction of undoing – rather than being complicit with – systems and structures that perpetuate an unjust, unsustainable, unfulfilled world.
- You take action that strikes at the root. You seek to engage in effective personal and collective actions that strike at the root causes of the global crises, and you involve others in taking those actions.
- You are part of a global movement. You experience being an integral member of a vast and growing evolutionary movement toward reconciliation and wholeness.
Friday, January 26, 2018
A new model for corporate governance
Larry Fink's letter to CEOs | BlackRock
Sunday, October 16, 2011
IWRM Definitions
It is based on the Dublin Principles, stating that: “1) freshwater is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development and the environment; 2) water development and management should be based on a participatory approach involving users, planners and policy makers at all levels; 3) women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water; 4) water is a public good and has a social and economic value in all its competing uses; and 5) integrated water resources management is based on the equitable and efficient management and sustainable use of water.” Global Water Partnership, http://www.gwp.org/en/The-Challenge/What-is-IWRM/Dublin-Rio-Principles/
AM “Seeks to aggressively use management intervention as a tool to strategically probe the functioning of [a system]. Interventions are designed to test key hypotheses about the functioning of the [system]...[it] identifies uncertainties, and then establishes methodologies to test hypotheses concerning those uncertainties. It uses management as a tool not only to change the system, but as a tool to learn about the system...The achievement of these objectives requires an open management process which seeks to include past, present, and future stakeholders. Adaptive management needs to at least maintain political openness, but usually it needs to create it. Consequently, adaptive management must be a social as well as scientific process...” Resilience Alliance, http://www.resalliance.org/600.php
Engle, Johns, Lemos, and Nelson. 2011. Integrated and adaptive management of water resources: tensions, legacies, and the next best thing. Ecology and Society 16(1): 19. [online] URL:http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art19/
Monday, October 3, 2011
Declaration of the Occupation
Declaration of the Occupation of New York City
This document was accepted by the NYC General Assembly on september 29, 2011
As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
This economic collapse is a 'crisis of bigness' | Paul Kingsnorth | Comment is free | The Guardian
This economic collapse is a 'crisis of bigness'
Leopold Kohr warned 50 years ago that the gigantist global system would grow until it imploded. We should have listened
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 25 September 2011 16.00 EDT
Article history
Living through a collapse is a curious experience. Perhaps the most curious part is that nobody wants to admit it's a collapse. The results of half a century of debt-fuelled "growth" are becoming impossible to convincingly deny, but even as economies and certainties crumble, our appointed leaders bravely hold the line. No one wants to be the first to say the dam is cracked beyond repair.
To listen to a political leader at this moment in history is like sitting through a sermon by a priest who has lost his faith but is desperately trying not to admit it, even to himself. Watch Nick Clegg, David Cameron or Ed Miliband mouthing tough-guy platitudes to the party faithful. Listen to Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy or George Papandreou pretending that all will be well in the eurozone. Study the expressions on the faces of Barack Obama or Ben Bernanke talking about "growth" as if it were a heathen god to be appeased by tipping another cauldron's worth of fictional money into the mouth of a volcano.
In times like these, people look elsewhere for answers. A time of crisis is also a time of opening-up, when thinking that was consigned to the fringes moves to centre stage. When things fall apart, the appetite for new ways of seeing is palpable, and there are always plenty of people willing to feed it by coming forward with their pet big ideas.
But here's a thought: what if big ideas are part of the problem? What if, in fact, the problem is bigness itself?
The crisis currently playing out on the world stage is a crisis of growth. Not, as we are regularly told, a crisis caused by too little growth, but by too much of it. Banks grew so big that their collapse would have brought down the entire global economy. To prevent this, they were bailed out with huge tranches of public money, which in turn is precipitating social crises on the streets of western nations. The European Union has grown so big, and so unaccountable, that it threatens to collapse in on itself. Corporations have grown so big that they are overwhelming democracies and building a global plutocracy to serve their own interests. The human economy as a whole has grown so big that it has been able to change the atmospheric composition of the planet and precipitate a mass extinction event.
One man who would not have been surprised by this crisis of bigness, had he lived to see it, was Leopold Kohr. Kohr has a good claim to be the most important political thinker that you have never heard of. Unlike Marx, he did not found a global movement or inspire revolutions. Unlike Hayek, he did not rewrite the economic rules of the modern world. Kohr was a modest, self-deprecating man, but this was not the reason his ideas have been ignored by movers and shakers in the half century since they were produced. They have been ignored because they do not flatter the egos of the power-hungry, be they revolutionaries or plutocrats. In fact, Kohr's message is a direct challenge to them. "Wherever something is wrong," he insisted, "something is too big."
Kohr was born in 1909 in the small Austrian town of Oberndorf. This smalltown childhood, together with his critical study of economics and political theory at the LSE, his experience of anarchist city states during the Spanish civil war, which he covered as a war reporter, and the fact that he was forced to flee Austria after the Nazi invasion (Kohr was Jewish), contributed to his growing suspicion of power and its abuses.
Settling in the US, Kohr began to write the book that would define his thinking. Published in 1957, The Breakdown of Nations laid out what at the time was a radical case: that small states, small nations and small economies are more peaceful, more prosperous and more creative than great powers or superstates. It was a claim that was as unfashionable as it was possible to make. This was the dawn of the space age – a time of high confidence in the progressive, gigantist, technology-fuelled destiny of humankind. Feted political thinkers were talking in all seriousness of creating a world government as the next step towards uniting humanity. Kohr was seriously at odds with the prevailing mood. He later commented, dryly, that his critics "dismissed my ideas by referring to me as a poet".
Kohr's claim was that society's problems were not caused by particular forms of social or economic organisation, but by their size. Socialism, anarchism, capitalism, democracy, monarchy – all could work well on what he called "the human scale": a scale at which people could play a part in the systems that governed their lives. But once scaled up to the level of modern states, all systems became oppressors. Changing the system, or the ideology that it claimed inspiration from, would not prevent that oppression – as any number of revolutions have shown – because "the problem is not the thing that is big, but bigness itself".
Drawing from history, Kohr demonstrated that when people have too much power, under any system or none, they abuse it. The task, therefore, was to limit the amount of power that any individual, organisation or government could get its hands on. The solution to the world's problems was not more unity but more division. The world should be broken up into small states, roughly equivalent in size and power, which would be able to limit the growth and thus domination of any one unit. Small states and small economies were more flexible, more able to weather economic storms, less capable of waging serious wars, and more accountable to their people. Not only that, but they were more creative. On a whistlestop tour of medieval and early modern Europe, The Breakdown of Nations does a brilliant job of persuading the reader that many of the glories of western culture, from cathedrals to great art to scientific innovations, were the product of small states.
To understand the sparky, prophetic power of Kohr's vision, you need to read The Breakdown of Nations. Some if it will create shivers of recognition. Bigness, predicted Kohr, could only lead to more bigness, for "whatever outgrows certain limits begins to suffer from the irrepressible problem of unmanageable proportions". Beyond those limits it was forced to accumulate more power in order to manage the power it already had. Growth would become cancerous and unstoppable, until there was only one possible endpoint: collapse.
We have now reached the point that Kohr warned about over half a century ago: the point where "instead of growth serving life, life must now serve growth, perverting the very purpose of existence". Kohr's "crisis of bigness" is upon us and, true to form, we are scrabbling to tackle it with more of the same: closer fiscal unions, tighter global governance, geoengineering schemes, more economic growth. Big, it seems, is as beautiful as ever to those who have the unenviable task of keeping the growth machine going.
This shouldn't surprise us. It didn't surprise Kohr, who, unlike some of his utopian critics, never confused a desire for radical change with the likelihood of it actually happening. Instead, his downbeat but refreshingly honest conclusion was that, like a dying star, the gigantist global system would in the end fall in on itself, and the whole cycle of growth would begin all over again. But before it did so, "between the intellectual ice ages of great-power domination", the world would become "little and free once more".
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Corporate Takeover of Drinking Water
The UN Is Aiding a Corporate Takeover of Drinking Water
But there's darker data beneath that sunny marketing: The CEO Water Mandate has been heavily hammered by the Sierra Club, the Polaris Institute and more for exerting undemocratic corporate control over water resources (PDF) under the banner of the United Nations. It even won a Public Eye Award for flagrant greenwashing from the Swiss non-governmental organization Berne Declaration. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
"There is no admission of problems with the Water Mandate, or the United Nations Global Compact itself" -- the strategic policy initiative committed to human rights, labor and the environment -- Blue Gold and Blue Covenant author and activist Maude Barlow, who also chairs the National Council of Canadians and Food & Water Watch, explained to AlterNet. "These initiatives continue to flourish, not least because the most powerful member states of the United Nations are fully behind them. This also means that the United Nations is not funded fully. Programs and agencies often rely on private sponsorship to function, and are often barely getting their core administrative budgets funded."
Another major problem is that routinely compromised and controversial institutions like World Bank, International Monetary Fund and regional development banks in general are in control of the United Nations' biggest projects. In April, the World Bank assumed control of the United Nations Climate Conference's new $100 billion Green Fund, which is the opposite of a comforting proposition, considering the World Bank's repeatedly noxious financing of oil and coal projects.
"That gives control of billions of dollars to those who have been the most ardent promoters of water privatization," added Barlow, whose foreword for the Council of Canadians' recently damning report on private sector influence over the United Nations (PDF) argued that the planet is on the verge of a water crisis of terrifying proportions. "We're also seeing the IMF forcing indebted nations to sell off public assets, including water systems, as a condition of receiving financial support. The whole system is rigged for these corporations, and they still are losing contracts, not meeting their obligations and watching as remunicipalization moves forward in France and other core markets."
That kind of illogical corporate performance would logically lead to less control, not more. But the United Nations continues to hand over the reins to multinationals like its new cosigner Merck, which has repeatedly settled in court over everything from carcinogenic pollution to deceptive marketing. Despite the fact that the United Nations' own Joint Inspection Unit stated in a 2010 report (PDF) that the Global Compact's corporate partnerships were an unregulated mess.
"The lack of a clear and articulated mandate has resulted in blurred focus and impact," the report stated. "The absence of adequate entry criteria and an effective monitoring system to measure actual implementation of the principles by participants has drawn some criticism and reputational risk for the Organization, and the Office’s special set up has countered existing rules and procedures. Ten years after its creation, despite the intense activity carried out by the Office and the increasing resources received, results are mixed and risks unmitigated."
The report suggested that not only was a clearer mandate from Member States required to "rethink and refocus" the Compact's corporate partnerships, but that the United Nations' General Assembly must better direct the Secretary-General to delineate the Compact's overall functions "in order to prevent a situation whereby any external group or actor(s) may divert attention from the strategic goals agreed to promote interests which may damage the reputation of the United Nations." The short version? It's not working, and won't work in its current form for the foreseeable future.
But the United Nations' own advice to itself has evidently fallen mostly on deaf ears.
"Unfortunately, the United Nations appears to be embracing more and more partnerships with the corporate sector across the board," Corporate Accountability International campaign director Gigi Kellett told AlterNet. "Civil society has been raising concerns about this flawed approach for over 10 years. There are strong voices within the United Nations, including some Member states, who are questioning the partnership paradigm adopted by the UN and calling for more transparency and accountability."
But they are voices in the wilderness without the concerted support of a motivated public, as well as the usual civil society champions who make stopping this strain of corporate abuse their life's work. Power truly respects only one thing, and that is equally exercised power. And the public is fully empowered to make all the change it wants, provided it can unplug itself from distracting sex scandals and mainstream media marketing primarily designed to nurture its collective complacency.
"Corporations rely on people's tacit support and willingness to look the other way when they engage in conduct that harms people or the environment and undermines democratic governance and decision-making," Kellett said. "When people come together in coordinated fashion and withhold their support from a corporation, that relationship is turned on its head. Boycotts are one powerful way that individuals can withhold their support, but there are range of other strategies. When activists come together and raise questions about a corporation's actions and tie them to its brand and image, the resulting media exposure can greatly impact how the corporation is perceived by consumers, investors or even government regulators."
But how do you boycott a multinational that controls your water supply? Can you shame a mammoth corporation into abdicating control over a lucrative commodity that should instead be regarded as a universal human right? Talk about your Sisyphean tasks.
"Boycotts are much more difficult with water than a product like Coke," said Barlow. "There are no substitutes for water, and when these corporations are given monopoly power over water systems, boycotts are very unrealistic. Suez, Veolia and others are very concerned about their corporate image, but there is no effective means to hurt them financially except to end or block the contracts before they are signed. Boycotts have been very effective as public awareness campaigns, but citizens need to apply pressure on their governments as the first step in stopping the proliferation of voluntary initiatives."
Demanding regulation of the private sector's products -- from water and natural resource commodification to inscrutable financial instruments and beyond -- as well as the public's political electives appears to be the paramount first principle. Because the problem is getting worse and going nowhere, especially now that our dystopian climate crisis has permanently disrupted business, and existence, as usual. From escalating warming and extreme weather to destabilized nations and environments, Earth is already precariously balanced on the tipping point. And giving profit-minded corporations voluntary control over their power and procedures is a 20th century anachronism best left behind.
"We have not proven to have what it takes to deal with the climate crisis," argued Barlow, "and this is because it is all seen as a giant political and financial game, rather than the best and only chance to head off a catastrophe like we have never before imagined. Climate change is upon us, but we will never admit it fully, nor invest in stopping it, if our governments continue to represent corporate interests above others. It is up to us to challenge our states, and make sure they know we are engaged and aware."
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Coalitions, Science, and Belief Change
Christopher M. Weible and Paul A. Sabatier from the University of Colorado Denver found that collaborative approaches: (and I quote from Page: 1)
- will mitigate conflict
- help integrate science and values
- policy subsystems are associated with convergence in some beliefs between rival coalitions
- policy participants are no more likely to rely on science-based, empirical beliefs in collaborative than in adversarial policy subsystems.
Weible and Sabatier "use the advocacy coalition framework (ACF; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Sabatier & Weible, 2007) to compare adversarial and collaborative policy subsystems concerning (i) convergence in beliefs regarding both water quality problems and Comments from page 1 continued on next page agreement with policy proposals; and (ii) the relative use of empirical versus normative beliefs in supporting policy proposals." Thus they Conclude (clipped directly from Page: 14)
- This long-term shift toward science suggests learning has occurred in the Basin and supports Weiss’s (1977) enlightenment function that science slowly accumulates like sedimentation in the minds of decision makers.
- Changes in beliefs, for example, might not result from the emergence of a collaborative subsystem but rather from turnover in policy participants or to other unknown factors. [$$$ is my personal experience].
- Political events in the Basin, however, show the same trends found across many environmental policy subsystems: a shift from adversarial processes … to collaborative processes.
- Analysis finds that in a collaborative policy subsystem some beliefs converge between coalitions, suggesting the mitigation of conflict to more intermediate levels.
Sabatier Paul A., and Christopher M. Weible. (2007) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications. In Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd edn, ed. Paul A. Sabatier. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 189–220.
Weiss, Carol. (1977) Research for Policy’s Sake: The Enlightenment Function of Social Research. Policy Analysis 3 (Fall): 531–45.
weavers leadership web
Author: (c) June 17, 2011 2:04 AM Eric Weaver
Integrated regional water management
Mark Lubell is a Professor at UC Davis helped Lucas Lippert an MS student who "conducted a survey of Bay Area stakeholders regarding their participation and attitudes towards IRWMP.” Lubell and Lippert completed an evaluation of the IRWM development in San Francisco California specifically to inform other water management professionals of the importance of this collaborative model. However, the majority of their reviews found that the old-guard set on the command and control paradigm would invariably circumvent and over ride any new stakeholder and cooperative collaboration that impeded their “politics-as-usual.” Lubell and Lippert conclude by discerning the need to further research issues like “How much change, over what time span, is enough to continue investing in integrated approaches?” Of course any research to reduce the fragmentation and encourage integration and collaboration is important while they found the IWRM “only make incremental changes in the short-run."
Institutional development for IWRM:
Bandaragoda, is the Retired Regional Director for International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI)'s South East Asia Regional Office and Senior Management Specialist for nine years in IIMI's Pakistan program based in Lahore after serving as a member of the Sri Lankan administrative service while MUKAND S. BABEL, is a Associate Professor, Water Engineering & Management at the Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand. Together they document the development of integrated water resources management (IWRM) through the United Nations Conference on Water in the Mar del Plata (1977), the International Conference on Water and Environment (1992), the Second World Water Forum (2000), the International Conference on Freshwater (2001), the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002, and the Third World Water Forum (2003) which made IWRM central to global politics. They discussed IWRM’s zenith with “The fourth World Water Forum in Mexico in 2006 dealt with sharing experience and finding ways to further the implementation of IWRM” before Bandaragoda and Babel went back into the concept’s history to note that China addressed water management back in the twentieth century BC. After completing the historical review the authors reviewed current applications and ambitions attempts in Asia which resulted in critical questions:
- Why have the water sector institutional reforms failed?
- Is it necessary to have hydrologically based RBOs [river basin organization] for the promotion of IWRM?
- Can the developed-country models of RBOs be successfully replicated in developing countries?
- Pilot projects to establish sub-basin level stakeholder organizations were successful.
- A clear water policy and related water laws are essential requirements to guide this collaborative arrangement.
- Expensive institutional device such as RBOs is not necessary.
- Local stakeholder involvement, an inter-sectoral representation is most essential.
Beneath the surface: international institutions and management
Christopher A Scott is an Asst. Research Professor, in the School of Geography and Development and Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, with Anita Milman as a graduate student in his program. They examined the Santa Cruz aquifer along the Arizona and Mexico boarder to understand polycentric management methods for transboundary groundwaters. The exploration begins with the three-Cs: “competence, compatibility, and capacity” (as discussed by Young 2002, pages 98-100) which is used to determine how “regulations” and “regulators” are intertwined in the area through an array of acronyms. Their analysis “identified specific gaps, overlaps, and ambiguities that arise from the polycentric and evolving nature of the intranational institutional environment in both the US and Mexico and explained how these reduce the competence, compatibility, and capacity of each country to address transboundary groundwater management.” Other water management professionals must recognize that states rarely have “complete control” over there water resources and that their management methods must be more decentralized, addressing private sector participation, and marketable property rights.
weavers leadership web
Water Sustainability: Anthropological Approaches
Ben Orlov an anthropologist who earned a BA from Harvard University and an MA and PhD from the University of California, Berkeley., has since the 1970s, conducted field work in the places like the Peruvian Andes, East Africa, the Italian Alps, and Australia collaborated with Steve Caton Professor of Contemporary Arab Studies in the Department of Anthropology Program at Harvard University. These anthropologists provide detailed insight into Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) which has become a central theme for water governance internationally as a “total social fact.” They begin with a review of the two central themes for water of connectivity and materiality in context with human and environmental uses and then expand this into the five analysis issues of value, equity, governance, politics, and knowledge. From here they discuss the various perspective of water regimes, watersheds and waterscapes and how these are all intertwined with IWRM which often goes beyond them. Orlove and Caton conclude by presenting to the professional water audience that future explorations of water in all these contexts must go beyond just the consumer and must be studied ethnographically through a combination of approaches that are determined case by case based on the connections and materials involved with in the water: "regime," "shed" and “scape” configuration.
Analysing water governance in heterogeneous case studies
Knieper, C.; Holtz, G.; Kastens, B.; Pahl-Wostl, C.; (2010) Analysing water governance in heterogeneous case studies: Experiences with a database approach Environmental Science & Policy. 13(7):592-603
Thursday, June 16, 2011
five sentences? Just FIVE = 5?
Status: Published
Ben Orlov an anthropologist who earned a BA from Harvard University and an MA and PhD from the University of California, Berkeley., has since the 1970s, conducted field work in the places like the Peruvian Andes, East Africa, the Italian Alps, and Australia collaborated with Steve Caton Professor of Contemporary Arab Studies in the Department of Anthropology Program at Harvard University. These anthropologists provide detailed insight into Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) which has become a central theme for water governance internationally as a “total social fact.” They begin with a review of the two central themes for water of connectivity and materiality in context with human and environmental uses and then expand this into the five analysis issues of value, equity, governance, politics, and knowledge. From here they discuss the various perspective of water regimes, watersheds and waterscapes and how these are all intertwined with IWRM which often goes beyond them. Orlove and Caton conclude by presenting to the professional water audience that future explorations of water in all these contexts must go beyond just the consumer and must be studied ethnographically through a combination of approaches that are determined case by case based on the connections and materials involved with in the water: "regime," "shed" and “scape” configuration.
- Status: Published
Christopher A Scott is an Asst. Research Professor, in the School of Geography and Development and Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of Arizona, with Anita Milman as a graduate student in his program. They examined the Santa Cruz aquifer along the Arizona and Mexico boarder to understand polycentric management methods for transboundary groundwaters. The exploration begins with the three-Cs: “competence, compatibility, and capacity” (as discussed by Young 2002, pages 98-100) which is used to determine how “regulations” and “regulators” are intertwined in the area through an array of acronyms. Their analysis “identified specific gaps, overlaps, and ambiguities that arise from the polycentric and evolving nature of the intranational institutional environment in both the US and Mexico and explained how these reduce the competence, compatibility, and capacity of each country to address transboundary groundwater management.” Other water management professionals must recognize that states rarely have “complete control” over there water resources and that their management methods must be more decentralized, addressing private sector participation, and marketable property rights.
weavers leadership web
- Status: Published
Bandaragoda, is the Retired Regional Director for International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI)'s South East Asia Regional Office and Senior Management Specialist for nine years in IIMI's Pakistan program based in Lahore after serving as a member of the Sri Lankan administrative service while MUKAND S. BABEL, is a Associate Professor, Water Engineering & Management at the Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand. Together they document the development of integrated water resources management (IWRM) through the United Nations Conference on Water in the Mar del Plata (1977), the International Conference on Water and Environment (1992), the Second World Water Forum (2000), the International Conference on Freshwater (2001), the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002, and the Third World Water Forum (2003) which made IWRM central to global politics. They discussed IWRM’s zenith with “The fourth World Water Forum in Mexico in 2006 dealt with sharing experience and finding ways to further the implementation of IWRM” before Bandaragoda and Babel went back into the concept’s history to note that China addressed water management back in the twentieth century BC. After completing the historical review the authors reviewed current applications and ambitions attempts in Asia which resulted in critical questions:
- Why have the water sector institutional reforms failed?
- Is it necessary to have hydrologically based RBOs [river basin organization] for the promotion of IWRM?
- Can the developed-country models of RBOs be successfully replicated in developing countries?
- Pilot projects to establish sub-basin level stakeholder organizations were successful.
- A clear water policy and related water laws are essential requirements to guide this collaborative arrangement.
- Expensive institutional device such as RBOs is not necessary.
- Local stakeholder involvement, an inter-sectoral representation is most essential.
- Status: Published
Mark Lubell is a Professor at UC Davis who “focuses on human behavior and the role of governance institutions in solving collective action problems and facilitating cooperation" currently involved with "watershed management, environmental activism, agricultural best management practices, and institutional change in local governments” with Lucas Lippert an MS student who “conducted a survey of Bay Area stakeholders regarding their participation and attitudes towards IRWMP.” Lubell and Lippert completed an evaluation of the IRWM development in San Francisco California specifically to inform other water management professionals of the importance of this collaborative model. However, the majority of their reviews found that the old-guard set on the command and control paradigm would invariably circumvent and over ride any new stakeholder and cooperative collaboration that impeded their “politics-as-usual.” Lubell and Lippert conclude by discerning the need to further research issues like “How much change, over what time span, is enough to continue investing in integrated approaches?” Of course any research to reduce the fragmentation and encourage integration and collaboration is important while they found the IWRM “only make incremental changes in the short-run."
- Status: Published
Christopher M. Weible and Paul A. Sabatier from the University of Colorado Denver found that collaborative approaches: (and I quote from Page: 1)
- will mitigate conflict
- help integrate science and values
- policy subsystems are associated with convergence in some beliefs between rival coalitions
- policy participants are no more likely to rely on science-based, empirical beliefs in collaborative than in adversarial policy subsystems.
Weible and Sabatier "use the advocacy coalition framework (ACF; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993; Sabatier & Weible, 2007) to compare adversarial and collaborative policy subsystems concerning (i) convergence in beliefs regarding both water quality problems and Comments from page 1 continued on next page agreement with policy proposals; and (ii) the relative use of empirical versus normative beliefs in supporting policy proposals." Thus they Conclude (clipped directly from Page: 14)
- This long-term shift toward science suggests learning has occurred in the Basin and supports Weiss’s (1977) enlightenment function that science slowly accumulates like sedimentation in the minds of decision makers.
- Changes in beliefs, for example, might not result from the emergence of a collaborative subsystem but rather from turnover in policy participants or to other unknown factors. [$$$ is my personal experience].
- Political events in the Basin, however, show the same trends found across many environmental policy subsystems: a shift from adversarial processes … to collaborative processes.
- Analysis finds that in a collaborative policy subsystem some beliefs converge between coalitions, suggesting the mitigation of conflict to more intermediate levels.
Sabatier Paul A., and Christopher M. Weible. (2007) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications. In Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd edn, ed. Paul A. Sabatier. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 189–220.
Weiss, Carol. (1977) Research for Policy’s Sake: The Enlightenment Function of Social Research. Policy Analysis 3 (Fall): 531–45.
weavers leadership web
Author: (c) June 17, 2011 2:04 AM Eric Weaver
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Stalled regime transition
Tisza River map ===>Sendzimir, Flachner, Pahl-Wostl and Knieper (2010) Stalled regime transition in the upper Tisza River Basin: the dynamics of linked action situations. Environmental Science & Policy. 13(7):604-619
Jan Sendzimir from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria; and Zsuzsana Flachner of the Research Institute for Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary completed this article with the help of the Management Transition Framework (MTF) experts Claudia Pahl-Wostl and Christian Knieper from the Institute of Environmental Systems Research, Department of Mathematics & Computer Science, University of Osnabruck, in Osnabruck, Germany.

They discussed the transformation of the Tisza River governance system from the existing flood defense system to a more Adaptive Management (AM) process after a series of severe floods. Specifically they used MTF, developed at Osnabruck, Germany, to assess the critical factors in transformation from the ineffective Command and Control system to the more progressive AM system.
The created MTF system chart is presented (see upper right), they discussed the components of it in detail and then reviewed this in context of their 7 different "hypothetical characteristics of river management regimes" including: Learning, Finance & Risk, Infrastructure, Info Management, Scale of Analysis, Sectoral Integration and finally Governance (below right).

Of these 7 characteristics Governance and Learning were most prevalent involved at 28.4% and 20.8% of the processes respectively. In conclusion they found that "Governance and Learning opened the door to new ideas, but neither was sustained sufficiently by consistent leadership to secure transformation."
Monday, June 13, 2011
Integrated and adaptive management
Engle, N. L., O. R. Johns, M. Lemos, and D. R. Nelson. (2011) Integrated and adaptive management of water resources: tensions, legacies, and the next best thing. Ecology and Society 16(1): 19.
Engle, Johns, Lemos, and Nelson specifically addressed the challenges and short comings in the water governance systems of integrated water resources management (IWRM) and adaptive management (AM). They reviewed the issues found in the literature and then discussed their own empirical analysis of cases in Brazil. They found many of the same problems and issues that IWRM and AM claim to resolve. The top-down command-control paradigm is still present and decidedly difficult to replace. When leadership is committed to more community and democratic policy development the distribution of stakeholders and priorities are still often in line with leadership.
As previously noted multiple and fragmented priorities results in unsustainable systems. Thus, there has been a trend to combine the IWRM and AM approaches to create a new management technique. This combined effort seeks to more broadly provide the means for (Engle et. al. 2011):
- increase effectiveness through integration across social, ecological, and hydrological systems;
- add legitimacy and promote public acceptance through stakeholder participation, cooperation, decentralization, and democratic decision making;
- incorporate technical expertise through inclusion of different forms of knowledge and promotion of social learning; and
- promote flexibility and adaptability through experimentation and learning in managing water resources.
theoretical frameworks are difficult to translate into practice, they mostly fail to provide successful examples of implementation." The strongest representations for the more integrated adaptive approach has been supported by other authors reviewed in this blog. Specifically, Engle et. al.mentioned "the NeWater project (www.newater.info/), which underscores the need for adaptive integrated water resources management (AWM) to address the uncertainty associated with increasingly complex and interconnected problems (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007)."
More research is needed to evaluate how integration techniques can work. Such research needs to address the tensions that come from such integrated approaches and how to avoid these issues. Empirical analysis of the hybrid management systems will support further work in this area.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Analyzing complex water governance regimes
Pahl-Wostl, Claudia; Holtz, Georg; Kastens, Britta; Knieper, Christian. (2010) Analyzing complex water governance regimes: the Management and Transition Framework. Environmental Science & Policy Volume 13, Issue 7, November 2010, Pages 571-581Pahl-Wostl, Holtz, Kastens & Knieper presented a description of the Management and Transition Framework (MTF) which is proposed as a method for analyzing the development of watershed plans. It could be used for a multitude of governance systems but was developed specifically for creating a database of coherent applications for watershed governance comparisons. For example, they noted that "Folke et al. (2005) point[s] out that adaptive governance systems often self-organize as social networks with actor groups that draw on various knowledge systems and experiences for the development of a common understanding and policies." Thus, a interdisciplinary system for context specific evaluations was needed as Pahl-Wostl et al. defined here:
Management and Transition Framework (MTF) that has been developed to support the analysis of water systems and management (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2007a,c). The MTF is an interdisciplinary conceptual and methodological framework that supports the understanding of water systems and management regimes and transition processes towards more adaptive management.The Pahl-Wostl et al. review of MTF summarized key thematic areas:
- adaptive management and characteristics of adaptive water management regimes,
- social learning and regime transitions,
- the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework analyse collective choice process.
The MTF has specific classes and attributes which are used to define relationships. Relationship diagrams are developed with defined terms for each component. Here is an example Diagram (See Fig 1 at right) with some significant process terms used:- ‘Water System’ which comprises all environmental and human
components. - ‘Ecological System’ class comprises abiotic and biotic
components of the water system. - ‘Environmental Services’ capture the function of an ecological system as provider of different kinds of services for
human activities. - ‘Environmental Hazards’ are the threats that an ecological system poses to a societal system.
- ‘Technical infrastructure’ refers to infrastructure of relevance for the water management issue under concern.
- ‘Action Arena’ is an issue specific political arena focused on a societal function.
- ‘Action Situation’ is a structured social interaction context that leads to specific outcomes.
Finally, the MTF allows for the collection of standard data on these processes to assess further developments. Systems can be standardized and evaluated. In conclusion Pahl-Wostl et al. "planned to further develop and implement a global database of river governance and management regimes and meanwhile evaluating and revising the framework."
Twin2Go’s Objectives
The failure of governance systems has been identified as being one of the most important reasons for increased vulnerability to water related disasters. Successful governance in river basin management depends on adaptive institutions able to cope with complexity and uncertainty. The EU has established a significant portfolio of research projects on issues of integrated water resources management (IWRM). However, to accelerate the pace at which water management practices and water policy move towards integrated approaches, more importance needs to be given to effective communication of research results and to constructive engagement with stakeholders from all levels, including political decision makers.
Against this background,
Twin2Go’s objectives are:
- to review, compare, synthesize and consolidate the outcomes of several EU-funded projects that undertook research on specific IWRM issues in basins around the world
- to draw context-sensitive but transferable approaches for improving adaptive water resources management with regards to adaptive water governance
- to formulate policy-relevant best practices and tools for implementing adaptive water governance and for improving the uptake of research results
- to disseminate outcomes effectively to relevant stakeholders at the policy level.
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
USF+AppSysSc: Projects
| Aquaculture | Aquacultural concepts for Uzbekistan . | |
| Aquastress | Mitigation of Water Stress through new Approaches to Integrating Management, Technical, Economic and Institutional Instruments. | |
| ASEM | Water resources management by focussing on the five main issues: river basin management, water use efficiency in agriculture, floods, pollution, governance. | |
| Eco Campus | connects actors working or studying at universities who actively support the ecological design of research, teaching, and administration at universities. | |
| Elbe-DSS | Sustainable management of fluvial systems. | |
| ELPOS | Criteria for persistence and long-range transport of pesticides and industrial chemicals. | |
| ETAPOS | A spreadsheet model for screening assessment of overall persistence, long-range transport and bioaccumulation potential | |
| For566 | Veterinary medicines in soils: basic research for risk analysis. | |
| GREAT-ER | A GIS Assisted Model For Environmental Risk Assessment and Management of Chemicals in River Basins. | |
| GWSP | Global Water System Project | |
| Harmoni CA | Harmonised Modelling Tools for Integrated Basin Management. | |
| Harmoni COP | Harmonising Collaborative Planning; understanding of participatory river basin management and planning (RBMP) in Europe. | |
| SARISK | Development of a pollutant dispersal model for risk analysis and evaluation of extreme flood events exemplifying the town and district of Bitterfeld | |
| MaMBIES | Mathematical Modelling of Bioinvasions and Epidemic Spread | |
| MaMPFi | Mathematical Modelling of Plankton-Fish Dynamics | |
| Newater | New Approaches to Adaptive Water Management under Uncertainty. | |
| PartizipA | Participative Modelling, Actor and Ecosystem Analysis in Regions with Intensive Agriculture. | |
| Plastics | Plastics in the marine environment | |
| PSI-Connect | Policy Science Interactions - Connecting Science and Policy through Innovative Knowledge Brokering in the field of Water Management and Climate Change. | |
| Twin2Go | Coordinating twinning partnerships towards more adaptive governance in river basins. | |
| VOLAMOD | Field experiments in artificial streams to develop and evaluate a model approach for volatilization of hydrocarbons and other organic pollutants from natural rivers | |
| Wademed | WAter DEmand management knowledge base for the MEDiterranean. | |
| Wasamed | Establish a platform for an effective dialogue on water saving in agriculture in the Mediterranean region. |
- Sent using Google Toolbar"
