Social learning in water management

Over the past decades, the character and complexity of problems that water managers face have changed to such a degree that new approaches are indispensable. Authors like Castells (1997) and Giddens (1990) state that our societies are challenged by governance problems due to increasing complexity, interdependency and fragmentation of interests and identities. To resolve it, more democracy and more direct ways of putting democracy in practice are needed.

According to many authors, the complexity and uncertainty of current water and river realities urge for new forms of governance (Doppelt, 2000; Gregory, 2000; Tabara, 2003; Woodhill, 2002). These new forms should replace the traditional hierarchical systems, oriented to control, by participatory and flexible systems, based on experimenting and Social Learning between multiple actors.

Socio-economic boundary conditions change quickly and require more flexible management strategies. Climate change results in increase in uncertainties, in particular extreme events.

The environmental problems society faces today are thus more intricate than in the past and require new approaches to problem solving (Pahl-Wostl, 2002). A common feature of these new approaches is their integration of social and political sciences with technical, economic and ecological sciences. This points to the need to consider the possible repercussions of responses on both the technical-economic-ecological and the societal subsystems.

The importance to bring a wide range of societal actors together is recognised both in the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and in important Common Implementation Strategy documents. Aspects of trust, social learning and network building are recognised as keys to sustainable freshwater management (Galaz, 2005).

The HarmoniCOP project was aimed at the development of solutions for the increasing complexity and uncertainty in water management. It has sought to do so by making the concept of Social Learning operational.

The HarmoniCOP project

The HarmoniCOP project (Harmonizing COllaborative Planning) has tried to meet the need for integration by placing emphasis on collaboration, rather than merely public consultation. The key concept used and explored in HarmoniCOP is ‘social learning’. Social learning is, among other aspects, about creating trust, promoting relations and networks about collective learning and eventually collective action.

Key elements of the HarmoniCOP project are: 1) the introduction of the concept of social
learning in water management, with special focus on the implementation of the WFD; 2) a comparative study on public participation practices in nine European countries, both on a national scale and on a case study level; 3) research into the role of IC-tools in the public participation process; 4) dissemination in the form of a Handbook and training sessions.

Social learning in water management

In the HarmoniCOP project, the concept of social learning is summarised as: ‘learning together to manage together’. Social learning emphasises collaboration between the different stakeholders, starting at the earliest possible moment. It helps to build up trust, develop a common view on the issues at stake, resolve conflicts and arrive at joint solutions that are technically sound and actually implemented in practice. It helps all stakeholders to achieve better results than they can achieve otherwise. Social learning is called for whenever:

• Different stakeholders depend on each other to reach their goals
• There is no agreement on the problems at stake
• The issues are important enough for the stakeholders to invest the necessary time and money.

A social learning process comprises the following aspects:

• Learning about each other’s opinions and viewpoints
• Respect of these opinions and viewpoints, based on an understanding of the underlying reasons
• Generating, preserving and exchanging knowledge during the project and for follow up activities
• Enabling stakeholders to adjust their views and attitudes by looking at problems from their neighbour’s perspective
• Changing the management style from bargaining to problem solving by integrating different interest
• Recognition of all stakeholders of the fact that they can learn from each other

Table 1 shows how social learning compares to traditional public participation and what the benefits are for water management.

The contribution of social learning to water management is its focus on improving collaboration and on the quality of the relationships that the stakeholders establish. To quote Webler (1995: 460): “The crystallisation point of participation is when the group transforms from a collection of individuals pursuing their private interests to a collectivity that defines and is oriented toward shared interests”

When and how can social learning help the water manager

Water managers all over Europe are facing the challenge of implementing the WFD. The WFD states that the public should be consulted three times in the planning process and that the “active involvement of all interested parties” should be encouraged. The purpose of HarmoniCOP is to help water managers foster social learning, as a means to achieve active involvement.

For a water manager the investments in social learning processes have to be justified by benefits further on in the planning cycle, e.g. in the planning or implementation phase.

According to figure 1, the problem identification and planning phase will take longer in a participatory decision-making setting, but benefits are to be found during the implementation phase.

Although this seems plausible, practical evidence is scarce. The Water Conservation Project in the provinces of Noord-Brabant and Limburg, in the Netherlands, provides some proof. Jacobs (2004) stated: “Social learning takes time. Parties must learn to trust each other (...). As soon as this mutual trust has been achieved, the process is speeded up”.

Comparison of national practices and case studies

Within the HarmoniCOP project a comprehensive literature-based review of the national experiences of the ten participating countries was undertaken (Patel & Stel, 2004). In addition, nine European case studies were conducted to gain first-hand practical experience with participatory processes in river basin management. This provided a solid basis from which to identify the depth and variety of experiences in public participation in RBMP both between and within the countries.

Many regional variations and specific experiences were found. In spite of this, significant commonalities and similarities in experience could also be identified. Thus the lessons learned were often a reflection of underlying issues and factors related to history, culture, politics and geography that influence and shape the individual experiences.

The conclusions of the study specifically focus upon the key considerations and recommendations for the implementation of the participatory provisions of the WFD; see Table 2.

Information and communication tools in social learning

In the HarmoniCOP project, information and communication tools (IC-tools) are defined as artefacts, devices or software that can be seen and touched, and can be used in a participatory process to facilitate Social Learning (Ridder et al., 2005). A method is a way, technique or process for doing something, but contrary to the tools does not have a material reality.

In the complexity of current water management, the sharing of information and knowledge, and enhancing communication between stakeholders are crucial components. IC-tools and methods can support participation and social learning in different ways, for example by supporting the interaction between stakeholders. Tools and methods can be controlled directly by the stakeholders or through a facilitator. They can bring individuals (and groups) together and improve communication between them. Examples of methods that support and enhance interaction are focus groups, citizen’s juries and roundtable conferences. Whilst IC-tools and methods can support participatory processes, tools and methods themselves can also be participatory. An example of such participatory methods is group model building in which stakeholders build a model together to improve their understanding of the issue.

IC-tools and methods can also provide a means for managing and disseminating information and knowledge. For example, a geographical information system (GIS) can support the storage, analysis and sharing of information between stakeholders. Such a tool can help to create a common knowledge base.

A third way that IC-tools and methods can support participation and social learning is by contributing to the elicitation of interests, positions and perspectives. A role playing game, in which stakeholders play different roles in a real or imaginary context, may make explicit the way in which stakeholders have ‘framed’ their reality (Craps, 2003). Framing and reframing workshops will allow stakeholders to explore different analytical frameworks and refine their problem perception. Methods such as role playing games and (re)framing workshops can be supported by a range of IC-tools such as GIS, graphical toolkits, maps and simulation models.

Certain methods and tools may be more appropriate than others for use in specific phases of the participatory process and for achieving the required level of participation. Different ICtools can be applied in the development and initiation, implementation and monitoring/evaluation phase of the participation process. Within these participatory phases IC-tools can be used to achieve/inform (co-knowing), consult (co-thinking) or actively involve (co-operate) stakeholders. The HarmoniCOP handbook (Ridder et al., 2005) presents a way to analyse the applicability of IC-tools and methods for each participation phase and level.

Concerning the perceived usability of tools, some lessons learned in the HarmoniCOP case studies concerned the required degree of sophistication of the tools. High-tech tools, such as computer models, can strengthen the technical leadership of some institutions or present an added value to simulate complex phenomena. On the other hand, inadequate use of IC-tools with a heavy technical content can act as a barrier to Social Learning, by overwhelming actors with complex or technical information that is not relevant or understandable for them (Rees et al., 2005). Many stakeholders call for simple communication tools that can make the information more accessible to a wide range of audiences (Maurel, 2003). In Flanders, Belgium, a television documentary contributed most significantly to an increased understanding and a positive image of the river valley under study (Craps and Prins, 2004). A site visit or field trip may be very helpful to complement complex modelling, showing in an interactive and real setting the potential effects of a specific proposed intervention.

HarmoniCOP’s handbook and training

The main findings of the research carried out in the HarmoniCOP project were translated into practical guidelines in a handbook for practitioners. The printed version is available in English. Translations in various European languages are available on the project website (www.harmonicop.info).

Conclusion

The aim of the HarmoniCOP project is to contribute in solving the problems that water managers face, as described in the introduction. This contribution will help to improve the quality of responses to increased demands on the water management system, by involving stakeholders and by promoting the establishment of sustainable connections between them.

However, this is not the complete contribution that HarmoniCOP has to offer. As was stressed throughout the paper, social learning is more than an adaptation of procedures to involve stakeholders. It calls for a change in attitude of policy makers and water managers, to embark upon true involvement of stakeholders in planning processes, from very early stages.

HarmoniCOP was co-funded by the European Commission as part of the 5th Framework Programme. It started in November 2002 and ended in December 2005. Participating countries were Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. The authors wish to express their gratitude for the support by the European Commission. For further information please consult HarmoniCOP’s webpage at www.harmonicop.info or visit www.ewaonline.de

Participation aiming at mere consultation	Participation aiming at Social Learning	Contribution of Social Learning to water management
Participants are motivated to express their expectations concerning participation and their opinions about the issue at stake.	Participants are encouraged to explain why they have a certain opinion about the issue at stake and what it may mean for them on a personal level, beyond economic aspects.	Not only hydrological and ecological factors are discussed but also economical and societal as well as their connectivity.
People try to convince others to share their individual opinions.	Participants try to listen and better understand why others do not share their opinions	People learn more about the complexity and inter-linkages of water management.
Knowledge gained is limited to the predefined objective of participation. Reports, minutes and other results are made available to stakeholders that participated in the process, and sometimes to the wider public also. The process leads to an exchange of individual knowledge.	Knowledge elicitation is highly promoted and goes beyond the predefined objective of the participation process. The issue at stake and the objective remain more open throughout the process. The process leads to a coproduction of knowledge. Results of the process are prepared to meet the needs of different stakeholders, the public or whichever target group is defined.	More knowledge about rivers and river basin management is generated. A better focused documentation on different information users increases access to and use of information.
Trying to share one opinion.	Trying to agree on a consensus without losing the diversity of interests and knowledge	The risk of drop-outs during the process and the development of strong opposition is reduced.
To reach a decision, the participants bargain. Parties see each other as competitors and their interests as contradictory.	From the beginning the process is open to identifying similarities and common interests instead of focusing on differences. It leads to collective action.	More innovative and adapted decisions, a wider sense of ownership of the decisions, commitment to the decisions and better implementation.
Rarely achieved	Willingness to invest in future process because of individual knowledge gains and more and better relations among stakeholders	Future participatory processes are supported by existing relationships among stakeholders. Changes in understanding and redefining of problems lead to a more sustainable change in practise.

Table 1. Traditional participation versus Social Learning and the benefits of Social
Learning for water management. The numbers 1 to 6 refer to the list of important aspects in the text above.

 

Table 2. Considerations and recommendations for the implementation of the participatory aspects of the WFD.

Issues
Considerations
Recommendations

Guidelines

Need for additional guidelines for the implementation of the participatory provisions of the WFD.

These guidelines need to specifically target:

• ‘Active’ involvement methods to help facilitate Social Learning amongst participants.
• Informal participation, which actually defines much of the participatory experiences in Europe.
• The complex terminology used in the WFD; where possible avoid it altogether in order to make the WFD understandable for non-professionals.
• The facilitation of a beneficial attitude through positive interactions.
• Ways to learn from crises and to see them as an opportunity to prepare better for the next experience.

Information flow

Poor communication, collaboration and knowledge sharing can stifle the progress of a participatory process or even prevent its initiation.

WFD implementation is dependent upon collaboration and communication between regions and sectors.

• Make sure a communication strategy is prepared for working with stakeholders.
• Different water sectors need to collaborate and share responsibilities of the different water use sectors. There need to be efforts for better inter-agency communication and collaboration.
• More formal agreements for communication and interaction between different scales of intervention.
• Creating alliances between existing and new stakeholders.
• Provision of information to the wider public of past, current and planned activities and experiences.
• Incorporate ongoing monitoring and feedback mechanisms of all participatory activities so to better understand and meet the expectations of the stakeholders involved throughout the process.
• Investigate the potential use of IC Tools and apply them in a transparent way that is meaningful for the stakeholders.

Stakeholder ownership and involvement

If ownership of WFD implementation is not widened nationally and regionally, this can result in targets not being reached.

Late involvement of stakeholders can cause rejection of plans.

The WFD requires active and dynamic forms of participation that are highly resource dependent.

• Need to extend ownership of WFD implementation to a wider group of stakeholders. Responsibility should not remain in the hands of one administrative organisation.
• All stakeholders - including citizens - should be involved from the initial stages of the project – right from its very inception, during the development of the plans. This can result in greater ownership of the process, widen responsibility and ensure that the project is properly implemented and not rejected.
• Build teams to build resilience and capacity around key people, facilitators and leaders.
• To encourage Social Learning, participatory processes need to facilitate greater interaction between the stakeholders. Such processes depend upon resources such as officer time, training, facilitation skills, communication skills, etc. Sufficient resources needs should be accounted for in the project planning and budgeting.
• The use of IC tools should be explored and applied to boost quantity and quality of stakeholder involvement and to facilitate Social Learning. The usability of these tools depend upon the availability of time, money and expertise.
• Involve key stakeholders in bottom-up planning.

Political and institutional recognition of public participation

Whether the participatory requirements of the WFD implementation are met depends to a large extent on institutional and political recognition of participatory processes.

Lack of value given to participatory processes by those at a senior level can also prevent effective implementation.

• There is still much need for national politics to support participatory processes. This can have a positive impact on resourcing participatory initiatives and on the water manager’s resolve to undertake a participatory process. It is necessary for institutions to adopt a culture towards greater stakeholder involvement so that participatory processes are practiced more widely in sectors other than in water. Political structure may support this culture.
• Existing policy efforts that already support participatory processes should be built upon and extended.
• Senior level officers of governing bodies and water authorities responsible for the overall implementation of the WFD should support stakeholder involvement. This is required to give the water managers the authority to involve stakeholders at the early planning stages, to stimulate Social Learning and to identify common ground in the decision-making processes.