Stakeholder engagement in the Dee Basin
•
1 j'aime•726 vues
Presentation delivered by Simon Langan of the Macaulay Institute to a World Water Day workshop organised by University of Dundee on 22 March 2010
![Summary messages and requirements ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
En vedette (10)
Similaire à Stakeholder engagement in the Dee Basin
Similaire à Stakeholder engagement in the Dee Basin (20)
Plus de World Water Day
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Stakeholder engagement in the Dee Basin
- 1. Some Aspects of Flood Management Research and Practice Simon Langan Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen With contributions from colleagues at: MLURI, Aberdeenshire Council and Land Managers
- 4. Simulated national runoff patterns (UKCIP 02 scenarios)- Direct effects Annual, seasonal and spatial effects of climate change on runoff (Dunn 2007) Mean annual effects Precipitation Runoff Decreases Decreases more Seasonal effects Precipitation Runoff Drier spring / summer Wetter autumn in W / winter in NE Reduced in spring / summer Increased in some areas in autumn / winter
- 5. Future Land Use scenarios – based on land capability- Indirect effects (Brown et al., 2009)
- 6. Flow duration curves for spring : Show a significant increase in flows between all three 25 year periods (also issues of uncertainty) (Baggley et al., 2009) Long term flow analysis for the River Dee Need: To understand complex spatial and temporal dynamics
- 13. Exploring the Needs: Aquarius “ The farmer as a water manager under future climate regimes”
- 18. Connectedness
- 21. Central element is trust and experience Awareness, Education & Inter-agency Working Management of Point & Diffuse Pollution Wetlands & other Habitats Infrastructure (SUDS & SFMS) Building on past experience - Putting research into practice
Notes de l'éditeur
- Drawing on a wide variety of literature on effective management of natural resources, including water, the following arguments are made for involving stakeholders. Firstly, research on extreme flows in Australia, America and Europe indicate they have the qualities of ‘wicked problems’ – they are large scale, often un-predictable, difficult to control, and created by complex system interactions. Therefore, there are no ‘easy fixes’ as the solutions require long term changes in policies and behaviours as well as technical innovations. At the heart of wicked problem management, is the need to address the causes, not the symptoms, of the problem through ‘social learning’ and improving understanding of the risks and management responses. Secondly, the literature on mitigation and adaptation to climate change and their consequences (extreme flows) has illustrated that one needs to harness all available knowledge about what is causing the problem; and all available human resources to start managing extreme flows and their risks more effectively. As we will shortly outline, there may be a variety of (mis)understandings about flood risk and droughts that in turn mean that land owners and affected communities fail to take appropriate actions to prevent or to respond to extreme flows and the risk they pose. Understanding how different groups interpret the information provided on flood risk; and what steps they would consider taking to protect themselves or manage extreme flows, is crucial. Stakeholders don’t, and won’t, always behave as those writing the technical manuals might expect! Thirdly, there are practical, economic and political reasons why working with stakeholders, rather than trying to ‘command and control’ their actions makes for more effective outcomes. In practical terms, if stakeholders support a measure to manage extreme flows, they are more likely to provide access to the land, materials and local knowledge required to implement the measure. In economic terms, preventing damage from low flows is more cost-effective generally, than the cost of cleaning it up; and preventing infraction is better than pursuing the matter through a legal case. In political terms, the legitimacy of environmental policies, that is the degree to which such policies are supported by the electorate, is undermined if voters don’t understand the risks being regulated or perceive the regulation of extreme flows to be disproportionate or inequitable. Leading on from these arguments, building up understanding of why extreme flows need to be managed and how different stakeholders can take action to help manage extreme flows, can help improve the management of the whole land-water system and the ecosystem goods and services they provide [assume RJ will say more on this]. It is by working with stakeholders to customise measures, that measures for public gain (protecting down stream communities from flooding; ensuring adequate flows for ecology etc) can be implemented in ways that do not undermine individual livelihoods or incur unnecessary private losses.
- North Sea ??? Programme – see website. 3 Dee Vision involved six partners (Aberdeenshire council; Macaulay Institute, SEPA, SNH, Scottish Water and U of Aberdeen) working in three subcatchments of the River Dee – chosen for to trial programmes of measures for WFD. The work focussed on point and diffuse pollution, awareness raising and improving inter-agency working. In the Tarland and Davan catchments, there was a programme of habitat enhancement and control of diffuse pollution through riparian zone management (increased numbers of fish and water voles now being found). In the Tarland and Elrick, infrastructure was provided to improve point and source pollution control – in tarland through using a wetland to polish the effluent before returning it to the stream (with habitat outcomes for birds) and in Elrick a SUDS system to take the surface waters from a new industrial estate. Both schemes also have an element of off stream flood storage, and Tarland also has a demonstration site for off stream flood storage. All activities were complemented with stakeholder engagement and a programme of awareness raising using the website, interpretative signs, site visits, educational resources (Riverbox) and newsletters. Community events were also held and increasingly well attended. Within the Tarland catchment, the pilot SFM scheme is likely to be rolled out through the catchment (with approximately 20 in and off stream storage sites).