Co-engineering participatory water management processes: theory and insights from Australian and Bulgarian interventions

Broad-scale, multi-governance level, participatory water management processes intended to aid collective decision making and learning are rarely initiated, designed, implemented, and managed by one person. These processes mostly emerge from some form of collective planning and organization activities because of the stakes, time, and budgets involved in their implementation. Despite the potential importance of these collective processes for managing complex water-related social-ecological systems, little research focusing on the project teams that design and organize participatory water management processes has ever been undertaken. We have begun to fill this gap by introducing and outlining the concept of a co-engineering process and examining how it impacts the processes and outcomes of participatory water management. We used a hybrid form of intervention research in two broad-scale, multi-governance level, participatory water management processes in Australia and Bulgaria to build insights into these coengineering processes. We examined how divergent objectives and conflict in the project teams were negotiated, and the impacts of this co-engineering on the participatory water management processes. These investigations showed: (1) that language barriers may aid, rather than hinder, the process of stakeholder appropriation, collective learning and skills transferal related to the design and implementation of participatory water management processes; and (2) that diversity in co-engineering groups, if managed positively through collaborative work and integrative negotiations, can present opportunities and not just challenges for achieving a range of desired outcomes for participatory water management processes. A number of areas for future research on co-engineering participatory water management processes are also highlighted

Co-engineering Participatory Water Management Processes: Theory and Insights from Australian and Bulgarian Interventions

Broad-scale, multi-governance level, participatory water management processes intended to aid collective decision making and learning are rarely initiated, designed, implemented, and managed by one person. These processes mostly emerge from some form of collective planning and organization activities because of the stakes, time, and budgets involved in their implementation. Despite the potential importance of these collective processes for managing complex water-related social-ecological systems, little research focusing on the project teams that design and organize participatory water management processes has ever been undertaken. We have begun to fill this gap by introducing and outlining the concept of a co-engineering process and examining how it impacts the processes and outcomes of participatory water management. We used a hybrid form of intervention research in two broad-scale, multi-governance level, participatory water management processes in Australia and Bulgaria to build insights into these coengineering processes. We examined how divergent objectives and conflict in the project teams were negotiated, and the impacts of this co-engineering on the participatory water management processes. These investigations showed: (1) that language barriers may aid, rather than hinder, the process of stakeholder appropriation, collective learning and skills transferal related to the design and implementation of participatory water management processes; and (2) that diversity in co-engineering groups, if managed positively through collaborative work and integrative negotiations, can present opportunities and not just challenges for achieving a range of desired outcomes for participatory water management processes. A number of areas for future research on co-engineering participatory water management processes are also highlighted

Aiding multi-level decision-making processes for climate change mitigation and adaptation

Progress towards climate change aware regional sustainable development is affected by actions at multiple spatial scales and governance levels and equally impacts actions at these scales. Many authors and policy practitioners consider therefore that decisions over policy, mitigation strategies and capacity for adaptation to climate change require construction and coordination over multiple levels of governance to arrive at acceptable local, regional and global management strategies. However, how such processes of coordination and decision-aiding can occur and be maintained and improved over time is a major challenge in need of investigation. We take on this challenge by proposing research-supported methods of aiding multi-level decision-making processes in this context. Four example regionally focussed multi-level case studies from diverse socio-political contexts are outlined-estuarine management in Australia's Lower Hawkesbury, flood and drought management in Bulgaria's Upper Iskar Basin, climate policy integration in Spain's Comunidad Valenciana and food security in Bangladesh's Faridpur District-from which insights are drawn. Our discussion focuses on exploring these insights including: (1) the possible advantages of informal research-supported processes and specifically those that provide individual arenas of participation for different levels of stakeholders; (2) the complexity of organisation processes required for aiding multi-level decision-making processes; and (3) to what extent progress towards integrated regional policies for climate change aware sustainable development can be achieved through research-supported processes. We finish with a speculative section that provides ideas and directions for future research

Research-supported participatory planning for water stress mitigation

With multi-stakeholder issues such as climate change or population growth providing significant challenges for water managers, participatory approaches to planning and management are becoming increasingly popular. To aid water stress mitigation in Bulgaria's Iskar region, a participatory process with a broad range of stakeholders was designed and tested. Options adapted for the region such as risk management and industrial and domestic water conservation were studied. The results suggest that strong research support is needed to adapt participatory management theories into operational planning processes. Definition of appro- priate working groups with clear roles and responsibilities are also needed to ensure effective implementation

Research-supported participatory planning for water stress mitigation

International audienceWith multi-stakeholder issues such as climate change or population growth providing significant challenges for water managers, participatory approaches to planning and management are becoming increasingly popular. To aid water stress mitigation in Bulgaria's Iskar region, a participatory process with a broad range of stakeholders was designed and tested. Options adapted for the region such as risk management and industrial and domestic water conservation were studied. The results suggest that strong research support is needed to adapt participatory management theories into operational planning processes. Definition of appropriate working groups with clear roles and responsibilities are also needed to ensure effective implementation

Participatory risk management approaches for water planning and management: insights from Australia and Bulgaria

Throughout the world, water management and planning issues are becoming increasingly difficult to handle, and there have been calls for more adapted approaches to aid the decision-making processes required for water planning and management. Participatory risk management approaches appear appropriate for such situations as they can be designed to increase collaboration and manage conflict, explicit uncertainties, andstructure complexity in more understandable forms. This paper will outline some insights and lessons learnt from the design and implementation of two different participatory risk management processes for water governance: avalues-based method based on the Australian and New Zealand Standard for Risk Management for the development of the Lower Hawkesbury Estuary Management Plan in Australia; and a participatory modelling approach to manage the risks of living with floods and droughts in the Iskar basin in Bulgaria. Both processes were designed and implemented with the aid of researchers, local managers, government representatives at various levels of jurisdiction, community stakeholders and external legislative, scientific or engineering experts. The Australian process consisted of three interactive stakeholder workshops with an average of 20 participants, held over a period of four months, as well as an external scientific and legislative review. The workshops focussed on establishing estuarine values, issues and current management practices; performing a risk assessment based on the stakeholder defined values (assets) and issues (risks); and formulating strategies to treat the highest prioritised risks as input to the estuary management “risk response” plan. The Bulgarian process in the region of Sofia was primarily driven from a research perspective. The participatory process was more elaborate in design than the Australian process with around 60 stakeholders divided into 6 groups taking part in a series of 15 workshops, individual interviews and evaluation exercises over a one year period. The process included cognitive mapping of the current management context and physical system, values, visions and preference elicitation for actions, strategy development and evaluation. Both cases provided insights into the value and constraints of participatory risk management approaches in different regulatory and political environments, as well as some important common issues including: impacts of last minute process changes; how to deal with divergent objectives in a multi-institutional organising team; and the unintended ethical issues that can arise when working in “real-world” management situations. Increasing awareness of the value and potential issues associated with participatory risk management approaches should aid their adoption and the subsequent improvement of water planning and management around the world