Water governance in Alpine Valleys: using the past to understand the present. Presented by Beatrice Mosello at the "Perth II: Global Change and the World's Mountains" conference in Perth, Scotland in September 2010.

1. Water governance in Alpine
Valleys: using the past to
understand the present
Beatrice Mosello
PhD Political Science
Graduate Institute of International and
Development Studies, Geneva
Global Changes and the World s Mountains ,
Perth, Scotland, 26-30 September 2010

2. 1) Introduction
2) Literature review
3) Research design
4) Methodology
5) Case studies
6) Results

3. Adaptive Capacity for Water Management in
the Aosta and Ossola Valley
Climate and socio-economic changes will impact on
institutional structures for water management
Especially in mountain areas!
OBJECTIVE OF THE WORK:
Investigate the factors that define the capacity of
institutions for water management to adapt to climate-
related and socio-economic changes.
Focus on the local level of analysis: allows to further
explore solutions that communities/societies have taken
for managing shared water resources, also and especially
under conditions of stress.

4. Shared
resource:
Unit of analysis:
WATER Institutions tasked with
water resources management
functions in 4 economic sectors
Case studies: (agriculture, industry, tourism,
research)
Aosta Valley
Ossola Valley
Object of analysis: Institutional
Level of analysis: adaptive capacity of the
LOCAL water sector in the
mountains
(one region, one
province within the
Italian national context)

5. Literature review
1. Global changes in the mountains
The effects of globalisation on mountain areas
(Castelein et al. 2006, Debarbieux and Price 2008, Regato and Rami 2008)
Processes of Collective action by
regionalisation leading to mountain communities at
the definition of local, national and
“mountain regions” transnational levels
(Paasi 2002, Fall and Egerer (Price 1999, Gerbaux 2004,
2004, Del Baggio 2009, Rudaz Granet-Abisset 2004, Finger-Stich
2009) 2010)

6. 2. Managing water resources in the mountains
Mountain regions have a long
Water resources history of water management
as common pool practices (local communities!)
resources
Collective
property regimes Mountains are a
Collective management favour
schemes are possible and cooperation
crucial source of
should be encouraged especially in knowledge for
difficult natural examining the
(Stevenson 1991, Ostrom dilemmas of
1990, Trawick 2008)
environments
(Debarbieux and
managing a
Price 2008) public good that
knows no
boundaries, and
can be diverted
Challenging the view that water and traded
management gives rise to a « tragedy of (water)!
the commons » (Hardin 1968)

7. 3. Adaptive capacity in the mountains
Concept of What are the
ADAPTIVE conditions that
CAPACITY enhance the
institutional capacity
= to adapt?
The ability to recover (Engle 2007, Eakin and 1
or adjust to change Lemos 2006, Brooks et al.
2005, Haddad 2005, Ivey et Increased
through learning and al. 2004, Adger 2001)
flexibility so as to participation and
maintain or improve representation
into a desirable state
(Engle and Lemos
Increased flows
2010)
of information 3
and knowledge
Focus on the Social capital and
institutional dimension 2 networks and
resource availability

8. Analytical framework
1. Literature review 3 institutional conditions
of adaptation =
2. Historical analysis
INDEX OF
Reference to three periods: INSTITUTIONAL
1. « Agricultural phase »: ADAPTIVE CAPACITY
agriculture as a
predominant activity
1. Public participation in decision-making
2. « Industrial phase »: processes (P)
Industrial revolution and
railways 2. Access to and availability of
information (I)
3. Post-war period:
institutional reforms at 3. Access to and availability of resources
national and regional levels (experience, infrastructure, economic
+ development of tourism! resources) (R)

9. Survey
A survey was conducted to assess the current
institutional capacity to adapt to socio-economic and climatic changes in
the two mountain areas under analysis.
Respondents were Economic sector
from which
selected from the following Ossola Valley Aosta Valley
respondents have
economic sectors: been selected
1.Agriculture Agriculture 7 7
Tot. 44 Industry 7 5
2.Industry
respondents Tourism 8 6
3.Tourism Research 2 2
4.Research TOT. 24 20
8 Introductory questions
Tot. 32 + 1 conclusion
9 questions on P
questions
7 questions on I 7 questions on R

10. • For each indicator,
respondents were asked
to assign a grade from 1 to
5 reflecting: 1 Bad
– the effective presence of 2 Sufficient
such conditions in their
sector; 3 Modest
– the extent to which they 4 Good
supposedly contribute to 5 Excellent
building the adaptive
capacity of the water
management system to
future changes, including
climate change.
• The final grades were then summed up
General picture of the factors that may help mountain
communities to adapt to prospected socio-economic
and climatic modifications

11. Case studies
Aosta Valley Ossola Valley

12. Results – General Overview
Agriculture Industry Tourism Other (research) General
P 2.93 3.00 3.09 3.38 3.10
I 3.13 3.28 3.21 3.75 3.34
R 2.70 2.92 2.50 2.30 2.61
Experience 3.33 2.71 3.23 2.56 2.96
Infrastructure 2.70 3.13 2.67 1.69 2.55
Economic resources 2.09 2.51 2.34 1.13 2.02
Conditions of adaptive capacity, according to the Rating of the 3 components of the R condition
(resources)
rating given by respondents in the survey (Annex 1)
4.00 3.50
3.50 3.00
3.00 2.50
2.00 Experience
2.50
P Infrastructure
1.50 Economic resources
2.00 I
R 1.00
1.50
0.50
1.00
0.00
0.50
)
al
ism
re
ry
ch
er
st
tu
ar
ur
en
du
ul
0.00
se
To
ric
G
In
re
Ag
(
Agriculture Industry Tourism Other General
er
th
(research)
O

13. Results – Ossola Valley
Agriculture Industry Tourism Other (research) General
P 2.97 3.04 2.88 4.25 3.29
I 3.07 3.25 3.16 3.88 3.34
R 2.63 2.78 2.76 2.29 3.31
Experience 3.25 2.86 3.22 4.00 3.31
Infrastructure 2.68 3.00 2.75 1.88 2.58
Economic resources 1.96 2.47 2.31 1.00 1.94
Conditions of adaptive capacity, according to the Rating of the 3 components of the R condition
rating given by respondents in the survey (Annex 1) (resources) - Ossola Valley
Ossola Valley
4.50
4.50 4.00
4.00 3.50
3.50 3.00
Experience
3.00 2.50
Infrastructure
P 2.00
2.50 Economic resources
I 1.50
2.00
R 1.00
1.50
0.50
1.00
0.00
0.50
)
al
ism
re
ry
ch
er
st
tu
ar
ur
en
du
ul
se
0.00
To
ric
G
In
re
Ag
(
Agriculture Industry Tourism Other General er
th
(research)
O

14. Results – Aosta Valley
Agriculture Industry Tourism Other (research) General
P 2.90 2.95 3.29 2.50 2.91
I 3.18 3.30 2.58 3.63 3.17
R 2.75 2.97 2.74 2.30 2.69
Experience 3.43 3.10 3.25 3.63 3.35
Infrastructure 2.72 3.25 2.58 2.00 2.64
Economic resources 2.11 2.55 2.38 1.25 2.07
Conditions of adaptive capacity, according to the Rating of the 3 components of the R condition
rating given by respondents in the survey (Annex 1) (resources) - Aosta Valley
Aosta Valley
4.00
4.00
3.50
3.50 3.00
3.00 2.50 Experience
2.50 2.00 Infrastructure
P
1.50 Economic resources
2.00 I
R 1.00
1.50
0.50
1.00
0.00
0.50
)
al
ism
re
ry
ch
er
st
tu
ar
ur
en
du
0.00
ul
se
To
ric
G
In
re
Ag
Agriculture Industry Tourism Other General
(
er
th
(research)
O

15. Discussion of results
Indicator 1: Public participation Indicator 2: Information access and
availability
MODEST (3.10) institutional
condition for increasing adaptation MODEST (3.34) institutional
condition for increasing adaptation
Higher in the Aosta Valley!
Highest for the research sector Higher in the Ossola Valley!
Highest for the research sector
Indicator 3: Access to and availability of resources (experience, infrastructure,
economic resources)
MODEST (2.61) institutional condition for increasing adaptation
Higher in the Ossola Valley!
Highest for the industry sector
Highest: experience (2.96)

16. Challenges
• Very similar results between the two case areas:
bias in the survey?
• In both cases, very « weak » results (no
indicator scored higher than 3 = modest): WHY?
Solutions?
Comparison across sectors? – which sector has
the least adaptive capacity, and why?
Comparison across institutional contexts: e.g.
replicate the survey in Canton du Valais, or
Kyrgyzstan

17. Conclusion
Mountains are not only passive victims but RESPOSITORIES
OF INFORMATION on how to best adapt water governance
to global change
Through a survey, we
have assessed the
capacity of 3 institutional Focus on
conditions to increase CREATIVITY AND
adaptation in 2 mountain EXPERIENCE!
territories
(local level of analysis)

18. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR
ATTENTION!

19. Beatrice Mosello, PhD Candidate
Graduate Institute of International and Development
Studies, Environmental Studies Unit
11 A Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva
SWITZERLAND
E-mail: beatrice.mosello@graduateinstitute.ch