Perceptions of Integrated Water Resources Management in Myanmar

The WLE research project examined perceptions of four constructs underlying IWRM, policy integration, public participation, gender inclusion, and adaptivity among people responsible for the implementation of future water management plans in Myanmar

Supporting evidence-based decision-making: Capacity Building through Research

Lack of data inhibits informed decision-making and is a critical challenge in developing countries, many of which are under-resourced in financial, technical and institutional capacity to collect and analyse the required data. This limits the countries’ ability to achieve development goals and keeps them dependent on the provision of external resources. Development initiatives often treat capacity building and research as two separate tracks of development. While efforts have been made in the health sector to combine these through project-based learning, this approach is relatively unexplored in the water sector which by its inter-sectoral nature stands to benefit significantly from a more collaborative and solution-oriented development strategy. Capacity Building through Research (CBtR) facilitates data collection and analysis by local researchers, mentored by international experts, strengthening local capacity to produce credible evidence able to inform sustainability-related decision-making. Five case studies piloting CBtR are discussed here and evaluated through criteria of the Dutch Strategy Evaluation Protocol framework. CBtR is shown to be a long-term strategy that requires the strengthening of cross-disciplinary networks to enhance the capacity of water management institutions, which likely contributes to more efficient evidence collection and analysis suitable for decision-makers, leading to greater national resilience and reduced need for external support

Framework for assessing sustainability levels in Belgium agricultural systems - SAFE

Sustainability is now regarded as a crucial property of agricultural systems and its evaluation has become a main challenge for scientists, policy makers and farmers. In the last decade, different sets of indicators have been designed both at national and international levels. Meanwhile, more practical environmental impact assessment (EIA) tools have been developed at the farm level . However, none of these indicator sets can be used at both levels. Further, most of these initiatives focus only on environmental aspects of sustainability and do not take socio-economic aspects into consideration. Indicator selection does not always fit in a consistent and comprehensive framework, although there is a strong need to integrate sustainability indicators in order to facilitate comparison and assessment. Finally, few of these works relate to Belgian agriculture, which up til now lacked a tool for assessing the sustainability of its farms. This project aims at providing a framework for assessing sustainability levels in Belgian agricultural systems (SAFE) that overcomes the deficiencies mentioned above. This is achieved by: 1. Considering the concept of agricultural sustainability in a holistic manner – SAFE accounts for all three pillars of sustainability (environmental, economic & social). 2. Developing (a) a consistent approach for defining sustainability principles and criteria and (b) a core list of sustainability indicators identified through a standardized selection procedure. The ‘SAFE selection procedure’ is a flexible scientific process that builts on knowledge and experience of numerous experts. 3. Ensuring that the tool remains as easy as possible to interpret and thus to use, thanks to the integration procedure of sustainability indicators and the graphic expression of the results. 4. Building on a generic methodology. Though the set of selected indicators presented in this report is specific to the Belgian agricultural context, the method developed for the construction of the SAFE tool can be transferred for assessing sustainability levels in other geographical (Europe, world, …) and sectorial contexts. In particular, principles and criteria defined in SAFE have a universal value. 5. Taking action at three spatial levels, depending on the scale of application: (1) parcel (2) farm or (3) watershed for surface water-related issues, landscape/ecosystem for some soil and biodiversity related issues, and administrative units (region, state) for some environmental as well as for some socio-economic issues

Framework for assessing sustainability levels in Belgium agricultural systems - SAFE

Sustainability is now regarded as a crucial property of agricultural systems and its evaluation has become a main challenge for scientists, policy makers and farmers. In the last decade, different sets of indicators have been designed both at national and international levels. Meanwhile, more practical environmental impact assessment (EIA) tools have been developed at the farm level . However, none of these indicator sets can be used at both levels. Further, most of these initiatives focus only on environmental aspects of sustainability and do not take socio-economic aspects into consideration. Indicator selection does not always fit in a consistent and comprehensive framework, although there is a strong need to integrate sustainability indicators in order to facilitate comparison and assessment. Finally, few of these works relate to Belgian agriculture, which up til now lacked a tool for assessing the sustainability of its farms. This project aims at providing a framework for assessing sustainability levels in Belgian agricultural systems (SAFE) that overcomes the deficiencies mentioned above. This is achieved by: 1. Considering the concept of agricultural sustainability in a holistic manner – SAFE accounts for all three pillars of sustainability (environmental, economic & social). 2. Developing (a) a consistent approach for defining sustainability principles and criteria and (b) a core list of sustainability indicators identified through a standardized selection procedure. The ‘SAFE selection procedure’ is a flexible scientific process that builts on knowledge and experience of numerous experts. 3. Ensuring that the tool remains as easy as possible to interpret and thus to use, thanks to the integration procedure of sustainability indicators and the graphic expression of the results. 4. Building on a generic methodology. Though the set of selected indicators presented in this report is specific to the Belgian agricultural context, the method developed for the construction of the SAFE tool can be transferred for assessing sustainability levels in other geographical (Europe, world, …) and sectorial contexts. In particular, principles and criteria defined in SAFE have a universal value. 5. Taking action at three spatial levels, depending on the scale of application: (1) parcel (2) farm or (3) watershed for surface water-related issues, landscape/ecosystem for some soil and biodiversity related issues, and administrative units (region, state) for some environmental as well as for some socio-economic issues

Expert and local knowledge in decision support for natural resource management : analysis of capture and use

Pour être efficace, la gestion des ressources naturelles (GRN) doit prendre en compte correctement les objectifs de différents acteurs. Il est dès lors recommandé d'inclure activement les experts et les parties prenantes dans le processus de prise de décision. Cependant, la meilleure manière de prendre en compte différents types de savoir est sujette à controverse. L'objectif principal de cette étude est donc de développer, appliquer et évaluer des méthodes améliorées (hybrides) de prise en compte du savoir des parties prenantes et des experts dans les systèmes actuels de prise de décision pour la GRN. Cette recherche a été appliquée sur deux cas d'étude. Le premier, appelé SAFE, traite du développement d'un cadre pour évaluer la durabilité des systèmes agraires en Belgique. Le second, ALERT, traite de la gestion durable de l'eau dans des régions semi-arides, appliquée ici au bassin de l'Andarax (Espagne). L'analyse comparée des points forts et des points faibles des approches participatives et technocratiques fournit le cadre pour une approche hybride de prise de décision. Les expériences montrent que l'aide à la décision est améliorée lorsqu'une évaluation par des indicateurs est ancrée dans une approche participative. Des techniques de "recherche opérationnelle douce" permettent cette prise en compte. Nous présentons une méthode pour définir les indicateurs d'une façon participative qui permet de donner des réponses claires aux problèmes liés à la fiabilité des jugements. La définition d'une typologie de fonctions d'appartenance spécifique pour les indicateurs est une étape importante pour le choix participatif des normes. Un système informatisé d'aide à la décision (SIAD) a été développé afin de faire face à l'accroissement de la quantité d'information et de la complexité dans l'aide à la décision. En réponse à la demande d'une plus grande collaboration avec les acteurs locaux, le SIAD contient différentes fonctionnalités qui peuvent être configurées interactivement. Par default on propose des valeurs optimalisées pour assurer des standards de qualité. L'analyse multicritère permet une évaluation des alternatives de gestion et des scénarios dans le cadre de la prise de décision hybride. Nous traitons des choix importants à faire lors de l'interprétation des variations spatio-temporelles des performances de gestion et des implications de ceux-ci sur les avis finaux relayés aux décideurs. La propagation des incertitudes dans la prise de décision des cadres hybrides est aussi évaluée. Afin d'examiner l'incertitude d'une manière intégrée, une analyse mixte de sensibilité et d'incertitude est présentée. Celle-ci porte sur l'incertitude liée aux normes, aux poids et aux indicateurs. Afin de mener à une gestion efficace et durable des ressources naturelles, nous proposons des solutions techniques aux décideurs pour mieux valoriser la connaissance intrinsèque des acteurs de terrain et des gestionnaires.Efficient management of natural resources (NRM) needs to be built on a correct understanding of the objectives of different stakeholders. Therefore, it is required to actively involve experts and stakeholders in the decision making process. However, the introduction of these knowledge claims is controversial. This is due to differences in the quality of the underlying involvement methods. The principle objective of this study was therefore to develop, apply and critically analyse improved (hybrid) methodologies to integrate expert and local knowledge in existing NRM decision making frameworks. Research is performed on 2 case studies. The SAFE case study deals with the development of a framework for evaluating sustainability levels in agricultural systems in Belgium, while the ALERT case study deals with sustainable management of water resources in semi-arid regions, applied to the Andarax catchment in Spain. The analysis of pro's and contra's of both the technocratic and the pure participatory approaches sets the blueprint for a hybrid decision making framework. Experience shows that decision support is improved when an indicator-based assessment structure is embedded in the participatory approach. This is facilitated through the use of soft operational research techniques. A sound methodology for participatory indicator selection is presented and clear-cut answers to problems with reliability of judgments are provided. The design of different typologies of membership functions is an important step to future deliberation of participatory-based norms. A computerized decision support system (DSS) is developed as it proves to be an important means to deal with increased information and complexity in decision support for NRM. In response to calls for greater collaboration with local actors, the DSS contains different functionalities that are designed to be interactive, while optimal default values ensure basic quality standards. Multi-criteria analysis allows an evaluation of alternatives and scenarios in the hybrid decision making framework. We deal with important choices that have to be made when interpreting spatio-temporal variabilities in management performances and the implications thereof on the final projections towards decision makers. The propagation of uncertainty in the hybrid decision making frameworks is critically evaluated. In order to consider uncertainty in an integrated way, a combined uncertainty/sensitivity analysis is presented. This analysis includes uncertainty related to norms, weights and indicators. Finally, guidelines for communication of the findings towards decision makers are drafted.(AGRO 3) -- UCL, 200

Participatory processes and support tools for planning in complex dynamic environments: a case study on web-GIS based participatory water resources planning in Almeria, Spain

Democratization of water resources management through the involvement of stakeholders has been widely advocated over the past two decades. In light of mediocre results of such processes and severe criticism of the claimed benefits of stakeholder involvement, there is continued need for improving these processes and for supportive tools through which stakeholders can collaborate in decision making. In response to new European legal requirements, an innovative planning process was initiated to facilitate a productive dialog among stakeholders to develop a shared river basin management plan. This paper presents and discusses the results of action research on this participatory planning process in a semiarid river basin in Spain. We discuss: (1) to what extent participatory processes and tools address the needs of stakeholders and planners, (2) what enables or disables implementation in a complex socioeconomic reality, (3) to what extent the participatory approach leads to alignment with policy embodying a new water management paradigm, and (4) how tools can be flexible and their use adapted to changing contextual dynamics. Research results confirm the potential for increased participation assisted by web and GIS tools, however, such processes are highly sensitive to changing contexts as well as the mandate and continuity in support from management authorities. Fragmentation of responsibilities in the water arena and the weak interpretation of the coordinating role of the water administration undermine the democratic ruling sought for by public participation. Improved methodologies to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of participation are required, and tools need to be flexible in design and used in a facilitated participatory process, adaptable to changing contextual dynamics