REQUIREMENTS FOR ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE OF GROUNDWATER ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Transcription

1 REQUIREMENTS FOR ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE OF GROUNDWATER ECOSYSTEM SERVICES INSIGHTS FROM SANDVELD (SOUTH AFRICA), UPPER GUADIANA (SPAIN) AND SPREE (GERMANY) Presentation at the International Conference on Fresh Water Governance for Sustainable Development by Dr. Kathrin Knüppe Institute of Environmental Systems Research University of Osnabrück, Germany

2 BEFORE WE START Groundwater governance The fulfillment of appropriate authority and promotion of responsible collective action to ensure sustainable and efficient utilization of groundwater for the benefit of humans and dependent ecosystems. (Foster et al. 2009, p3) Management Refers to activities in the analyzing, monitoring, developing and implementing of measures to maintain natural resources in a state that is within desirable limits. Governance Refers to the actors and networks that formulate and implement policy. Governance sets the overall rules under which management operates. (Pahl-Wostl 2009)

3 GLOBAL SITUATION OF GROUNDWATER Undervaluation of the importance and significance of groundwater = out of sight out of mind Lack of consideration in management and planning Physical and ecological benefits E.g. habitat (micro-organism, flora/fauna), water cycle, purification processes, nutrient transport (source: Diversity of processes and functions Ecosystem services (ES) Socio-economic benefits E.g. Sanitation, drinking and cooking, health aspects, industry and irrigation, tourism

4 GROUNDWATER USER CONFLICTS Ecological system Groundwater ES Socio-economic system Trade-offs Intensive irrigation (pivot circles)

5 GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT FROM AN INTEGRATIVE PERSPECTIVE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (e.g. de Groot 1987, Mooney u. Ehrlich 1997, Daily 1997, Costanza 2000, MA 2005, Brauman et al. 2007) Definition The conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfill human life. (Daily 1997, p3) ADAPTIVE GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT (e.g. Holling 1978, Walters 1986, Pahl-Wostl 1995, Lee 1999, Gunderson and Holling 2001, Folke et al. 2005) Definition A systematic process for improving management policies and practices by systemic learning from the outcomes of implemented management strategies [ ]. (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2010, p573) Concept Bridges social and ecological systems Integrates a strategy for the management of land, water and living resources Highlights linkages between ES and human well-being Concept Takes into account system complexities, uncertainties, surprises and changing environments Increases the adaptive capacity of governance and management systems

6 REQUIREMENTS OF AN ADAPTIVE SYSTEM 1. Vertical integration (VI) Connectedness of various administrative levels Participation of state and non-state actors 2. Horizontal integration (HI) Cross-sectoral integration 3. Institutions Formal laws and regulations (legally binding) and informal norms, frameworks, projects etc.

7 RESEARCH MOTIVATION Lack of knowledge and exploration of groundwater ES Lack of empirical evidence RESEARCH QUESTIONS Lack of analytical frameworks Does a high degree of VI and HI support adaptive groundwater governance and foster the sustainable management of ES? RESEARCH OBJECTIVES What is driving the perceived need for institutional response in order to adopt integrative perspectives of groundwater? Understanding complex dynamics of governance and management systems Identify linkages, transformations and impacts Comparative case study analysis (patterns of adaptive systems)

8 CASE STUDIES SPREE, BRANDENBURG km² Coal mining, agriculture, tourism, forestry, fishery Decrease of water quality and quantity UPPER GUADIANA, CASTILLA LA MANCHA km² Intensive agriculture Illegal groundwater abstraction Wetland dehydration Spree, GER Guadiana, E SANDVELD, WESTERN CAPE PROVINCE km² Potato farming, rooibos tea cultivation Increase of GW abstraction and fertilizer >50% of natural habitat is transformed Sandveld, SA

9 METHODOLOGICAL RESEARCH DESIGN: MANAGEMENT AND TRANSITION FRAMEWORK Supports the scientific understanding of water governance and management processes and transitions towards adaptive systems (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2008, 2010) Multi-level systems Actor networks and behavior of individual actors Interactions between social and ecological systems Social learning and institutional change Class Diagram Formalized representation of structural elements ( classes ) Characteristics impact the linkages between different classes -> management dynamics Action situation (AS): structured social interaction context Knüppe and Pahl-Wostl 2011

10 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS 1. Literature research and document analysis Case studies, groundwater and ES, actors, institutions Identification of management processes (-> sequence of AS) 2. Expert interviews ~60 interviews (1-3 hours), heterogenic expert knowledge Semi-structured questions 3. Total System Database Standardized relational database (MS Access) Systematic comparison of cases and their contexts Management dynamics over time and space 4. Database queries Operationalization of VI and HI Interactions within and between one /more AS Participation processes Framing institutional development and implementation

11 A: Sandveld; B: UGB; C: Spree basin EMPIRICAL KEY FINDINGS: VI Intensity of actor s involvement at different levels: X: high; x: middle; x: low Level of AS Actors level International National Regional Basin Sub-basin A B C A B C A B C A B C A B C National x x x x x x x x x x Regional x x x x x X x x Basin x x x x x x x Subbasin x x x x x X X X x x x X AS at lower levels: (informal) meetings and discussions, implementation AS at higher levels: formulation of strategic management goals, development of institutions Actors at lower levels are hardly involved in AS at higher levels Goals, Knowledge and experience are not circulated or considered Disconnect between different levels of management

12 EMPIRICAL KEY FINDINGS: HI Sectoral integration takes place at lower levels Groundwater and ES are cross-sectoral; exclusion of sectors often causes trade-offs The dominant sector of water consumption is continuously involved -> lobbying Nature conservation is active at lower levels not empowered to make decisions

13 EMPIRICAL KEY FINDINGS: INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE All cases have well established water institutions EU directives, national water act Groundwater ES are not explicitly addressed in formal institutions It is difficult to institutionalize informal institutions at lower levels Contradictions between formal and informal Lack of expertise and financial resources Need for cross-sectoral integration in the institutional arena

14 CASE STUDY COMPARISON SIMILARITIES Central management system, dominant state actors Formal institutions Lobbying Exclusion of local actors generate mistrust and conflicts Bottom-up approaches DIFFERENCES Implementation and control of formal institutions Fulfillment of responsibilities Technical and ecological standards Awareness and significance of groundwater ES

15 DISCUSSION 1. Socio-political and economic shifts Rethinking in natural resources management New challenges (e.g. land-use changes, actors) Increase of participation, integration and innovative institutions Implementation slow/stagnant 2. Integrative groundwater management is weak and unpopular Disregard of groundwater ES Lack of expertise and data Central management structure (without clear vision)

16 CONCLUSION None case comprises an adaptive system in order to manage groundwater sustainable Higher degrees of VI and HI: Open up the political arena to environmental perspectives Increase the quality of groundwater and conservation plans Accelerate the implementation of policies Mitigate conflicts between different groundwater users Raise the awareness of different ecosystem services Development of institutional response: Still in the early stages of incorporating integrative perspectives of the different benefits groundwater ES provide The mere existence of well-crafted institutions is not sufficient to produce socially, ecologically or economically satisfactory results

17 OUTLOOK Linkages between governance, management and ecosystems Combination of quantitative and qualitative methods Interdisciplinary research ES Concept Adaptation strategies for water managers Political and institutional requirements Dialogue ( language ) for an integrative approach for resources management Overcome the disconnect Strengthen the science-policy-interface New research project (German Research Foundation) How to overcome the trade-offs between human and the environmental water needs in times of global change? Understanding links between the characteristics of a water governance and management system and its performance measures

18 THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND INTEREST

19 LITERATUR Brauman KA et al. (2007) The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32:67 98 Costanza R (2000) Social goals and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecosystems 3, 4 10 Daily GC (1997) Nature s services societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island, Washington de Groot RS (1987) Environmental functions as a unifying concept for ecology and economics Environmentalist 7, Folke C, et al. (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30: Gunderson LH and Holling CS (2001) Resilience and adaptive cycles. In: Gunderson L, Holling CS (eds) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island, Washington, pp Holling CS (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, New York Irwin F and Ranganathan J (2008) Action agenda for sustaining ecosystem services. In: Ranganathan J, Munasinghe M, Irwin F (eds) Policies for sustainable governance of global ecosystem services. Washington DC, pp Knüppe K and Pahl-Wostl C (2011) A framework for the analysis of governance structures applying to groundwater resources and the requirements for the sustainable management of associated ecosystem services. Water Resources Management 25(13): Lee KN (1999) Appraising adaptive management. Conservation Ecology 3(2): 3. [online] URL: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. World Resource Institute, Washington D.C. Mooney H A and Ehrlich P R (1997). Ecosystem services: A fragmentary history. In G. C. Daily (Ed.), Nature s services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press, Pahl-Wostl C (2009) A conceptual framework for analyzing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global Environmental Change 19(3): Pahl-Wostl C (1995) The dynamic nature of ecosystems: chaos and order entwined. Wiley, Chichester Pahl-Wostl C et al. (2010) Analysing complex water governance regimes: the management and transition framework. Environ Science and Policy 13(7): Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, New Jersey Walters CJ (1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. McGraw Hill, New York

20 1. Interaction within/between one or more AS Example: VI_AS_actorsFromLevelInvovled Shows the level of each individual AS (e.g. regional) Shows the level of each individual actor (e.g. national) participating in AS 2. Participation processes Example: VI_nonStateActors_perAS Shows the level of each individual AS Shows the number of state and non-state actors in AS 3. Sectoral interplay Example: HI_actors_involvedInNrActionArena (AA) Shows how AA are integrated via actors in AS