spare · the spare project aims at exchanging, adapting and capitalising strategic planning and...

SPARE

International Knowledge Exchange Workshop (IKEW)

“Toward Integrated River Ecosystem Management with enhanced public participation”

Ljubljana, Slovenia, September 27th, 2017

Report

2

SPARE - Alpine rivers as society’s lifelines

Rivers are the lifelines of sustainable development in the Alps. They provide clean drinking water for human use and irrigation for agriculture, they are home to a myriad of organisms, they provide recreation opportunities, and their power helps us to produce energy. Alpine streams can only provide these and other services to society if we take care of them, on the basis of comprehensive stream management. The SPARE (Strategic Planning for Alpine River Ecosystems) project aims at contributing to a further harmonization of human use requirements and protection needs. Nine project partners from six Alpine countries show how strategic approaches for the protection and management of streams can be improved across administrative and disciplinary borders, and promote awareness of the services provided by Alpine rivers, as well as their vulnerability. SPARE lasts from December 2015 to December 2018 and is co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund through the Interreg Alpine Space programme. www.alpine-space.eu/SPARE

3

CONTENTAIM OF THE WORKSHOP ............................................................................................................ 4

SESSION 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

SESSION 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 8

CHALLENGE A: WHAT ROLE SHOULD CITIZENS ASSOCIATIONS HAVE IN RIVER MANAGEMENT AND HOW CAN

WE ASSURE THEIR LONG-TERM SUCCESS? ........................................................................................................ 8

CHALLENGE B: HOW CAN WE MOTIVATE CITIZENS TO BE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN RIVER MANAGEMENT IN THE

LONG TERM? ..................................................................................................................................................... 12

CHALLENGE C: HOW CAN WE SUCCESSFULLY INTRODUCE THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (ES) CONCEPT INTO

PARTICIPATION AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES? ..................................................................................... 18

SESSION 3 ................................................................................................................................................... 22

PCS DRÔME (F) ............................................................................................................................................... 22

PCS DORA BALTEA (I) & INN – ENGADIN (CH) ............................................................................................... 26

PCS SOČA (SI) ................................................................................................................................................ 29

PCS STEYR RIVER ........................................................................................................................................... 32

SESSION 4 ................................................................................................................................................... 35

PICTURES .................................................................................................................................................... 36

ANNEX 1 - INFORMATION MATERIAL OF THE IKEW .......................................................................... 43

AIM OF THE WORKSHOP ......................................................................................................................... 43

INVITED EXPERTS ..................................................................................................................................... 44

SESSION 2: ADDRESSING CHALLENGES – GENERAL ..................................................................... 53

SESSION 3: PCS TABLES – ADDRESSING CONCRETE CHALLENGES ......................................... 57

DORA BALTEA, ITALY ........................................................................................................................................ 59

DRÔME, FRANCE ................................................................................................................................................ 1

INN – ENGADIN, SWITZERLAND .......................................................................................................................... 3

SOČA, SLOVENIA ................................................................................................................................................ 5

STYER & GROSSER BACH, AUSTRIA .................................................................................................................. 7

TRAVEL INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................ 11

ANNEX 2 - POWER POINT PRESENTATIONS OF INVITED EXPERTS .............................................. 14

4

Aim of the Workshop

The SPARE project aims at exchanging, adapting and capitalising strategic planning

and river management experiences across different spatial & governance scales.

SPARE acts in a transdisciplinary way combining socio-political, economic and

ecological assets and integrating inputs from different stakeholders and beneficiaries.

Five pilot case study sites in five participating Alpine countries form the core of our

project. In these areas good practices, policies and tools addressing the field of river

management are currently being developed and tested.

One of the main issues addressed in the SPARE project and the pilot case study sites

is active participation of all stakeholders in integrated river management.

The aim of the Workshop is to support the Pilot Case Study sites by recognizing

different reference practices and knowledge exchange that could successfully support

their needs to improve public participation within the framework of Integrated River

Ecosystem Management. For that the following challenges were addressed:

Challenge A: What role should citizens associations have in river management

and how can we assure their long-term success?

Challenge B: How can we motivate citizens to be actively involved in river

management in the long term?

Challenge C: How can we successfully introduce the ecosystem services (ES)

concept into participation and decision-making processes?

5

The Workshop followed the agenda.

Start End Programme

8:15 8:45 Registration

8:45 9:30 Session 1: Welcome & introduction

0:45

- Welcome: Minister Irena Majcen (Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning), dr. Metka Gorišek (acting director, Institute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia)

- Introduction of current state of SPARE, IKEW agenda, Pilot Case Studies, participants and moderators/facilitators mag. Sašo Šantl (workshop host/moderator and SPARE project manager, Institute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia)

9:30 13:15 Session 2: Plenary - Debate on challenges and supporting reference practices for Integrated River Basin/Ecosystem Management

3:45 h

Challenge A: What role should citizens associations have in river management and how can we assure their long-term success?

Coffee break

Challenge B: How can we motivate citizens to be actively involved in river management in the long term?

Short break

Challenge C: How can we successfully introduce the ecosystem services (ES) concept into participation and decision-making processes?

Introduction to next session

13:15 14:30 Lunch

14:30 17:00 Session 3: Parallel groups work –5 PCS tables: Dora Baltea (I), Drôme (F), Inn - Engadin (CH), Soča (SI), Steyr & Grosser Bach (A)

2:30 h

- Discussion and actions planning to address weak points and needs of PCSs, (possible exchange of experts and other participants between PCS tables),

- Joining of the youth from WWF (possible questions from youth), - Results finalization: conclusions on defined actions and still open weak points

and needs.

17:00 17:15 Coffee break

17:15 18:00 Session 4: Conclusions

0:45 h Presentation of PCS results, short discussion, conclusions

Closure

20:00 … Dinner

6

Session 1

The one day International Knowledge Exchange Workshop was opened by active

director dr. Metka Gorišek, Institute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia.

Minister of the environment and spatial planning Ms. Irena Majcen gave welcome

speech emphasising the significant value of integrated water management, while a

special focus have to be put on the participation processes in planning and decision-

making.

A EUSAIR’s environmental quality pillar coordinator, dr. Mitja Bricelj pointed out the

importance of cross border joint management of the coast, sea and rivers flowing into

the sea and their natural resources.

Host of the event, Sašo Šantl gave short introduction to SPARE project’s objective -

Integrated River Ecosystem Management, which is considered as a process of

coordinating conservation, restoration and management of river ecosystems in order

to maintain or improve ecosystem services provided by river ecosystems with

consideration of other water or water land depending development goals. Basis are

principle of sustainable development, integration of different spatial levels and policy

sectors, participatory processes involving a wide range of stakeholders.

Key aspects to support decision making process of Integrated River Ecosystem Management

7

Within the project SPARE practices were collected to support firstly SPARE’s pilot case

study sites and secondly practitioners toward IR(E)M. Beside beforehand collected

practices, the workshop enabled knowledge exchange to support specific needs that

were recognised and addressed via challenges.

Introduction of participants by relevant PCS (country):

PCS Drôme (F): Chrystel Fermond (PCS partner), Claire Eme (PCS), Emeline

Hassenforder (Project partner), Nils Ferrand (PP), Sabine Girard (PP), Dad Roux-

Michollet (observer), Julien Bigue (observer)

PCS Dora Baltea (I): Andrea Mammoliti Mochet (PCS), Erica Vassoney (PCS), Cristina

Morosato (PP), Alessandro Vianello (PP)

PCS Inn Engadin (CH): Angelika Abderhalden (PCS), Barbara Grüner (PCS)

PCS Soča (SI): Dušan Jesenšek (PCS), Jana Podgornik (PCS), Miro Kristan (PCS),

Uroš Robič (PP), Aleš Bizjak (observer), Miha Naglič (observer), Samo Podgornik

(observer), Suzana Vurunić (observer), Daniela Ribeiro (observer), Mitja Bricelj

(observer; Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning)

PCS Steyr (AT): Alexandra Schwaiger (PCS), Franz Überwimmer (PCS), Stefan

Schneiderbauer (PCS), Susanne Muhar (PP)

Invited experts (Details on invited experts can be found in Annex):

Ms Helene Masliah-Gilkarov, The International Commission for the Protection of the

Danube River (ICPDR), Austria

Mr Rob Collins, Head of Policy, The Rivers Trust, UK

Mr Jean-Emmanuel Rougier, Founding partner and co-manager at Lisode, France

Mr Lukas Egarter Vigl, EURAC Research · Spatial Ecology, AlpES project

representative, Italy

Mr Giancarlo Gusmaroli, Technical Director at the Italian Centre for River Restoration,

Italy; and Board Member and Secretary at the European Centre for River Restoration

Mr Klaus Michor, Managing Director at Revital Integrative Naturraumplanung, Austria

Mr Olivier Chaix, INTEGRALIA SA, Director and owner, Switzerland

8

Session 2

Main objective of Session2 was to open the mind of Pilot Case Studies (PCS) on

potential solutions/practices to tackle each challenge and support action planning on

PCSs according to their needs & goals of PCSs.

Challenges were discussed in a consecutive way. At the beginning of each challenge

the moderator opened recognized general needs and questions.

For each challenge the experts introduced their own experiences and presented their

or other reference practices which could support the challenge and specific needs. By

the expressed experiences we indicated which experts were to contribute the most to

certain challenge (see below under description of the challenges). Then the rest of the

experts gave their short point of view on addressed challenge. Other participants had

the opportunity to express some additional questions or a need for clarification, but

with focus on general or common issues. If participants had more PCS specific

questions, they wrote it down with the indication of a targeted person (the expert or

other participant) and pass it to the moderator to put it on the Discussion Needs Table.

These PCS specific questions were addressed later in Session 3. The experts had the

opportunity to answer the additional general questions.



Articulation with the institutional decision-making process. Should these associations

lobby for a representative seat at the local institutions? How can these associations

improve the top-down/bottom-up communication or be recognized as a link between

stakeholders and authorities (local and national level)?

What degree of “institutionalization” is adequate to assure true and sincere citizens

involvement? How to prevent the citizens to become “institutionalized”?

Financing of these citizen associations. As emerging organisations, many have

difficulties ensuring the continuous and long-term coordination of the participatory

process. In this context, where should they look for funding or what are possible financial

instruments? Should they be financed by their membership and project activities/results

or a priori by public financial resources?

How to prevent a citizen association is not “taken over” by certain stakeholders and their

interests?

9

How the initial citizen association structure should be established? Should or must be

changed during the time? What are main reasons for changes?

Are there differences if an association is involved in decision making at strategic or at

project level?

Should an association be additionally promoted or their working results already promote

it? How to improve the recognition of an association to be useful and supportive in IRBM?

Main speakers: Mr Rob Collins and Mr Jean Emmanuel Rougier

Mr Rob Collins shared experience of a catchment-based approach (CaBA) used in all

108 WFD catchments across England. The initiative aims to establish collaborative

working among various groups (NGO’s, government agencies, farmer representative

groups, water companies, local authorities, academia, local communities, and local

businesses) at a river catchment scale. One of the key issues of addressing the

questions is what role should each stakeholder have and how to assure long-term

success?

Various lessons have been learnt through CaBA; firstly, it is important to provide data

(free, open access) on different aspects (flooding, water quality…). For local

community groups and other stakeholders this is important, without data they cannot

learn about issues or fully understand pressures and impacts. The data also helps to

empower them and identify solutions. Another key area is technology. To involve and

engage the public in the long term, river partnerships are offering tools such as web

applications, shared information platforms and story maps, opportunities for volunteer

monitoring and citizen science. An example of successful public engagement is the

Riverfly partnership. Riverfly is a technique that identifies the health of a river through

its invertebrate population. Data is uploaded to a website and action from the

Environment Agency is triggered when the data indicates a significant problem. The

approach has been used in the past to identify a large pesticide pollution incident. –

Benefits of CaBA are bringing a range of stakeholders together, achieving consensus

between stakeholders with conflicting views, identifying solutions to issues that are not

easily addressed through direct regulation, co-delivery of action on the ground,

leveraging of funds from diverse sources and getting more for less.

Mr Collins specifically answered some questions under challenge A. On the first

question; England’s river catchment partnerships are recognised as representatives

and are involved in decision-making processes. It is not an easy answer to what degree

“institutionalization” is adequate, in their experiences slowly over time the voices were

heard; they have a kind of a “soft power” or “soft legitimacy” now.

10

Financing is also an issue in England, but there are various possibilities. A wider

partnership can propose a project to Government, for example, and receive funds in

this way, and may contribute a certain percentage of co-financing from another source.

Other sources include grant-giving trusts, European projects, lottery environmental

funds and local businesses.

The issue of certain interest group or stakeholder taking over the citizen associations

is an interesting question because not all partners are equal and it is possible that one

group takes over and dominates. Making data and evidence freely available to all helps

to avoid this since it can empower all organisations in the partnership, and is a form of

knowledge exchange.

To the last question on promotion, it is important to share up to date information with

the public and local community groups through, for example, shared information

platforms.

(Rob Collins, PPT)

Jean Emanuel Rougier shortly summarised his (and of Lisode company) expertise in

participatory processes which involved over 120 conducted participatory processes,

engaged 10000 participants in more than 500 workshops over the past 10 years.

11

Reflection on citizen associations is if one citizen is really a representative of all or is it

just a process of some citizens? From political science point of view, it is difficult to

know where you are and to be able to use citizen association. It is hard to mobilise all

citizens. So do you have a representation of all citizens in citizens association? To

rectify the occurrence you have to use tools and methods to involve citizens, which are

complicated and expensive. You need to have a clear vision of what you really want to

achieve and what are you able to do at the end.

Olivier Chaix replied that there is one point of view he finds important: that we define

the scale of area or basin, how many people are potentially involved. Usually small-

scale projects and large basin projects need different methods. At small scale, the

involvement of people where each one knows each other is easier, while on the other

side, level of involvement is different on basin or cantonal scale, it is more politically

oriented.

Mitja Bricelj asked why public participation at all. He thinks it was answered, and it

depends on a scale, understanding of the problem on that scale. Who is appointed to

point on priorities and problem solving? From local, national to transboundary scale,

who will tell the story? It is clear that groups have different interests, but no one is

against water quality or biodiversity for example. However, conflicts still arise.

Helene Masliah-Gilkarov replied that public participation has been inscribed in several

legal documents, strategies, conventions etc. so it is a very specific problem, but

citizens got a possibility to get involved. This is acknowledgement and if it is there, we

can empower people, engage them and make a sense of ownership. In addition it is

important how it is done, our methods are what it counts.

12



How can we increase citizen motivation and respond to their doubts in order to ensure

their long-term involvement?

How to build and ensure a long lasting involvement of citizen or at least avoid

participation fatigue?

How important is to consider the cultural/social attitude/relation of local communities to

the citizens participation? For example the same participation method/approach for river

planning can have very good impacts in one country but not in others.

How to efficiently recognize relevant stakeholders and what are their interests?

Who should communicate what and when in the planning process?

How must communication processes be built up in integrative planning processes?

Main speakers: Helene Masliah-Gilkarov, Klaus Michor, Giancarlo Gusmaroli, Olivier

Chaix

Helene Masliah-Gilkarov presented the role of ICPDR. The methodology of public

participation cycle, idea is to inform the public, to pass information, and to consult it,

than we transfer the opinion back to IPCDR with new information. It is necessity to be

transparent in the process. The objective is to get full spectrum of opinions. They want

to get a global picture so they reach public through various channels, they address

teachers, students, stakeholder consultations, organise Danube day event each year.

Danube Watch is publication and another means of reaching the public, editors from

different countries suggest stories; they give voice to the people.

They are very often balancing the needs of the environment and something else and

are often at crossroads and that is when they need to find balance. Example of how to

balance the needs is cross sector dialogue where 12-basin governance, industry and

environment interest groups and the result was commitment by three river

commissions (ICPDR, Danube Commission, and Sava Commission).

Concerning the question of participation she emphasized two words on that account:

one is engaging, the other one is giving ownership. Because once people are engaged,

they feel empowered and when they feel empowered, they feel they have a voice.

People need a role in a partnership, they need to engage in the process and you will

get a response from them. The response may not be what you are expecting but it is

a response. They are facilitators, their job is to save time, save other people’s

13

resources and you are getting faster to results. They need to get people to a solution

and they need people to understand the problem. It is important to fight

disengagement, keeping people on track, informed. Mutual trust, mutual understanding

and always keeping transparency is important.

(Helene Masliah-Glikarov, PPT)

Klaus Michor: First, it is important to define spatial area, for example, you have 50 km

of river, 20000 or more people will be consequently affected/involved. Secondly, you

need a problem. If you have no issue why ask people for help. When an issue arise,

you will get different ideas from people. You should make a plan, during planning

process propose different scenarios and evaluate them. Include people at the planning

process stage. In Austria, planning process takes 2 – 3 years. Invite public early so

they can learn with you, ask them for experience with the river and plan scenarios with

them. IREM is complex, many conflict interests arise. Normally you have narrow ways

to reach the end. You need to show confidence in the project and be honest with the

people.

Giancarlo Gusmaroli did not focus on practices but has shown diagrams that are

dealing with addressed challenge. You have to pay attention in your methods when

you try to map stakeholders on what you mean with influence and what you mean with

14

interest. The higher the variables (influence/interest) are the more effort you need to

engage. You need to ask who the people with low influence and low interest are. No

answer to this question.

(Giancarlo Gusmaroli, PPT)

Design of the stakeholder engagement process should follow the steps: Information –

Consultation – Participation – Negotiation – Empowerment. It is important to put the

right people in the right position (in line of stakeholder engagement process) otherwise

you will lose this people and get a bad decision.

The whole stakeholder engagement process is an awareness raising process.

15

(Giancarlo Gusmaroli, PPT)

Rob Collins: There are many ways to achieve participation but he thinks that if you give

citizens a connection to their river and catchment, that feeling of ownership helps to

ensure long-term involvement. Another point is that some community groups start with

small interesting things, later these people might get interested also in other aspects

of the river (for example if they see grey water they would question it).

Olivier Chaix “borrowed” diagrams from Mrs Helene Masliah-Glikarov presentation and

added one “timeline” with inclusion of participation in decision-making process (see

diagrams below). Diagrams start and end with a goal, and are composed of static or /

and dynamic part. First diagram is a static one, which means that decision was made

on policy level without public participation. A second diagram starts static, dynamic

part means that public was included, but inclusion in that stage can lead to difficulties

in aligning the goals. Third one starts dynamic, public participates early in the stage of

decision-making and it is easier to reach common goal. Interesting is the last diagram

which shows the Switzerland’s process. Diagram is completely dynamic and people

vote for each step of the process (direct democracy).

16

Schematic presentation of different “timelines” with inclusion of participation in-

between decision-making milestones (Olivier Chaix, during IKEW)

People easier identify themselves with the project if they are involved from the start. It

is important to have a small-scale project, which is also easier for the people to feel

and identify with the project. Usually people participate when they are directly affected,

for example farmers, owners of land near the river, which means they are driven by

private interests, but that does not count as participation but negotiation (see Giancarlo

Gusmaroli’s diagram Stakeholder engagement process). Project usually must be

unanimously accepted among community.

Jean Emanuel Rougier questioned the long-term involvement. As it was said, we have

to frame participatory process. It is expected that citizens have other occupations on

their mind; it is difficult to expect involvement. Sometimes when no one comes, it may

indicate that issue is not of a great importance. However, that can be understood as a

democracy.

Olivier Chaix commented that time scale is important and in some cases the time for

the project is just not right.

17

Lukas Egarter Vigl emphasised that AlpES project deals with strong involvement of

stakeholders in every work package. They have noticed that stakeholders need

examples, scenarios of ecosystem changes if impacted by our actions. We need our

results to be used in practical way.

Miro Kristan asked if we can defend the claim that participation improves the decision

making process.

Olivier Chaix commented that it might improve it, but had doubt that solution is better

because of compromises made during the decision-making and that is usually not

optimal (ideal) solution.

Rob Collins commented that if you do not bring people, all stakeholders together at the

end you might not get an optimal solution for society in the end, and you do not identify

all trade-offs. In the worst case, you might have legal challenges to that outcome.

Jean Emanuel Rougier commented that it depends what you call a better decision-

making process. Good decision-making process is short; results are conformed to what

you expect and depends if your expectations are just technical or related to the costs

of the project. If you make the decision-making process according to the evaluation

frameworks that are now on the table, you will see that if you do not involve people,

results are not good.

Klaus Michor said that if you are dealing with rivers, you are dealing with system, which

is very close to the human. Rivers have important roles in our lives (religious, cultural,

educational…). Speaking about the river is like speaking of emotions. In his

experience, these dialogues should have some kind of stable- dynamic; you need new

ideas, fresh energy, and leadership. If you are working in projects, you must be

completely transparent and believe in idea you promote.

Giancarlo Gusmaroli answered to the question of Miro affirmative. The stakeholder

engagement process diagram shows us that relation between the stakeholder and the

decision-making process but we have to be aware that the process does not stop with

the decision, after the decision we have to implement action and stakeholders are still

part of that. They get the benefits / consequences of actions.

18

Challenge C: How can we successfully introduce the ecosystem services

(ES) concept into participation and decision-making processes?

How to reach a common understanding of the ES concept among participants? How to

use it in a practical way when working with citizens with different knowledge what ES or

ES concept are?

How can we improve the understanding and acceptance of the ES concept as a decision

supporting tool, which considers the natural state (or close to natural state) of rivers as

a guarantee for the sustainable provision of ES? How to evaluate the natural river state

if considered as a development option?

How can be the Ecosystem services approach efficiently implemented in the frame of

the Integrated River Ecosystem or Basin Management?

How to include Ecosystem Services in the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) process?

Speakers: Lukas Egarter Vigl

Lukas Egarter Vigl shortly presented benefits derived from nature – ecosystem

services (ES). Picture present different ecosystem services, focused on river ES these

are: hydropower energy, fishing activities, tourism and recreational activities, enjoying

relaxing in the nature, diversity of ecosystem (habitats).

Collage of ES derived from rivers (Franz Überwimmer, Lukas Egarter Vigl, PPT)

19

Short introduction of AlpES project (Alpine Ecosystem Services – mapping,

maintenance and management). Main four objectives are to develop a common

understanding of ecosystem services, carry out mapping and assessment of ES for

the Alpine space, test the results in nine study regions, publish them in an interactive

GIS database and develop training tools and organise practical workshop.

(Lukas Egarter Vigl, PPT)

The project tends to contribute to the EUSALP Action group 6 “To preserve and

valorise natural resources, including water and cultural resources”; EUSALP Action

group 7 “To develop ecological connectivity in the whole EUSALP territory”; EU

Biodiversity strategy to 2020, EU Green Infrastructure Strategy, Selected Alpine

Convention protocols, Natura 2000, National and regional strategies and policies.

Project is in synergy with other projects and builds its knowledge on other databases

and researches.

After the consultations on needs with target groups, AlpES project decided to assess

eight ES: Surface water for drinking with minor or no treatments; Biomass production

from grassland; Fuel wood; Filtration of surface water by ecosystem types; Protection

20

of areas against avalanches, mudslides and rock falls; CO2 sequestration by forests

and bogs; Outdoor recreation; Symbolic alpine plants, animals and landscapes.

Rob Collins commented that maybe in the room we have a common understanding of

ES, but if we talk of wider public involvement, do they understand the concept? It is a

challenge to translate the “language” of ES as a concept for everyone.

Giancarlo Gusmaroli brought to attention another project – HyMoCARES, which deals

with the ES related to hydro morphological river management. In any case, the

definition of ES is pressure on nature. This is a matter of integrative assessment. Partly

ES may be just another communication tool.

Klaus Michor experience in LIFE projects is that you have a kind of evaluation of ES.

For example in restoration project, we have to evaluate the potential ES. We need

some kind of common criteria to ease the process. For participants, the term of ES is

too far.

Helene Masliah-Gilkarov pointed the attention to the fact that pictures support a

message. If you want citizens to relate you need pictures to present them and this

brings emotions from the people.

Rob Collins said that maps (for example flooding), help identify opportunities and are

a means to engage many stakeholders.

Jean Emanuel Rougier thought that you have to look a step further. Every few years

a new scientific concept emerges and everything is subordinate to newness. We do

not need to burden people with explanations and understanding, concern of people is

always the same.

Klaus Michor said that ES are a chance to see the whole picture.

Suzana (AlpES) commented that ES are a connection of nature and society. She

agreed with Jean Emanuel that concept is complex but it has a lot of scientific work

behind.

Giancarlo Gusmaroli agreed on the importance of pictures and visualisation as a tool

to reach people. Services need supplier and end user and when you engage end users,

perception is coming into the game.

Short comment from all on ES followed:

Giancarlo Gusmaroli said that we should remember that ES are not objective; they are

dependant from the stakeholder engagement. The same service would not have the

same value for every stakeholder.

21

Helene Masliah Glikarov pointed out that it is important to use nature resources in a

balanced way (relation human – nature).

Rob Collins commented that ES is a mechanism from how you go from the concept to

delivering environmental improvement.

Jean Emanuel Rougier concluded that for him ES is not a goal for itself.

Lukas Egarter Vigl commented that ES is a concept that combines ecological

processes with people needs. We need tailored solutions for specific contexts.

Klaus Michor concluded that if speaking as a planner he would need simple monitoring

system where different scenarios could be monitored and evaluated.

Olivier Chaix concluded that the same ES can have different objectives.

22

Session 3

Introduction

In the preparation phase of the workshop it was planned that participants and experts

will make exchanges at the tables (2x30 min), but since PCSs has requested more

time with invited experts, the experts did not change the tables for the entire session.

Youth from WWF joined the tables at scheduled time and facilitators gave them a short

introduction on current issues.

PCS Drôme (F)

Participants:

Chrystel Fermond (SMRD (PCS)), Claire Eme (SMRD (PCS)), Dad Roux-Michollet

(GRAIE (observer)), Jean-Emmanuel Rougier (invited expert - Founding partner and

co-manager at Lisode, France), Julien Bigue (ARRA (observer)), Sabine Girard (Irstea

(PP))

People who had joined the discussion in second part of the session:

- Two representatives of WWF Youth

- Helene Masliah-Gilkarov, The International Commission for the Protection of

the Danube River (ICPDR), Austria

- Olivier Chaix, INTEGRALIA SA, Director and owner, Switzerland

23

Starting positions:

PCS Drôme is within SPARE project experimenting with a 10-people pilot group and

opened an approximately 50-people representative group. Methods recommended by

Irstea are not all the time understood by participants.

PCS Drôme is at this stage experiencing some conflicts with and between participants:

some participants had become aggressive with some SMRD employees and between

them. One of them had been excluded of the representative group during the summer

2017 cause of disrespect.

Despite an intense communication plan, SMRD wonders how to motivate new people

to join the representative group. SMRD had used different communication channels as

Facebook, websites, local newspaper, local radio interviews, flyers …

A charter allows members of the representative group to observe waterboard meetings

during SPARE project. Since this decision, members of the representative group often

observe these meetings. One participant of the representative group had asked the

waterboard to maintain observer of the waterboard after SPARE project end.

Concrete expressed needs and questions:

1. How to regulate and avoid aggression from participants?

2. How to motivate people who want to participate?

3. After SPARE project, how to keep citizens involved in the institutional system?

Discussion

By the discussion, different points are explained: participants had understood

differently the project; SMRD employee had changed between Claire, Martin and

internship. Members of the representative group have not always signed the rules.

Rules are not so clear. SMRD and Irstea have different goals within SPARE: SMRD

wants to involve citizen in the Water Scheme revision and Irstea wants to explore and

test methods. As Irstea facilitate or participate to citizen meetings, participants could

feel the divergence. SMRD does not have to use all Irstea methods.

To increase participation, the discussion broaches the participation level:

communication plan and meetings are organized at the watershed level. Cultural

identities appear to be more intense at geographical level (upstream, (midstream) and

downstream). Organizing meetings to lower levels would allow an increase of

participation and need to organize more meetings. To improve communication among

participants, professional networks are the most efficient.

24

To approach the after SPARE demand, experts advice SMRD to clarify their motivation

by using why why in chains.

Conclusions:

Sign the rules is an obligation

For interpersonal conflicts, prefer a one to one discussion for an hour maximum

in order to solve the problem. If is not possible, prefer an external intervention

of a specialist. If not possible, exclude the person of the group.

Make sure that participants had understand the objectives of the project

Make a list of problems and send it to the group

Increase participation

Separate SMRD goals to Irstea goals into two ways of participation

Refuse Irstea tools if SMRD does not want

People have to be concerned

Have meeting as the local level

Use organization to test tools

Clarify the motivation of the citizen to join the waterboard

Still open questions

How could the SMRD assure human and financial needs? (for example: external

intervening, organize meetings at different levels, …)

25

Photo of conclusions and needs from the table PCS Drôme

26

PCS Dora Baltea (I) & Inn – Engadin (CH)

Participants:

Angelika Abderhalden (PCS Inn), Barbara Grüner (PCS Inn), Andrea Mammoliti

Mochet (PCS Dora Baltea), Erica Vassoney (PCS Dora Baltea), Cristina Morosato

(PCS Dora Baltea), Alessandro Vianello (PCS Dora Baltea), Nils Ferrand (PP), Klaus

Michor, Olivier Chaix.




A: River management citizens associations

Dora Baltea: How to increase awareness about the need of having better

information to ensure sustainable decisions about water withdrawals?

Dora Baltea: How to make aware stakeholders about the importance of

involving systematically local communities in withdrawals proposals?

Dora Baltea: How to increase stakeholders mutual trust?

Inn – Engadin: The IRBM is started by a regional association. Are there known

examples how it is possible to carry on the started process of an IREM?

B: Citizens active involvement

Dora Baltea: How to make local communities aware about their role and their

weight on decision making about water withdrawals?

Dora Baltea & Inn: how to up-skill young people and involve them in river

participation process influencing the final outcomes?

Inn – Engadin: How can a long term participation of citizens and stakeholders

be achieved (with a low budget)?

Inn – Engadin: Are there experiences how to involve citizens in planning

processes of protection and use of the water resource of a whole catchment

area?

C: Implementation of Ecosystem services concepts

Inn – Engadin: How can the Ecosystem services approach successful

implemented in the frame of the IRBM?

27

Conclusions:

Dora Baltea:

The main attribute of the PCS situation seems to be a problem at river governance

level: a first proposal to solve this difficulty could be to separate very clearly the

decision making process in “operational level” (i.e.: formal & technical assessment of

withdrawal sustainability) and “policy level”. It’s a matter of power & decision making

style (including information & trust), cultural background (rules & local behaviour) and

laws interpretation. Additional suggestions have been (1) to reduce the scale of

activities (i.e. consider at max 100 km of river length), (2) to discuss about concrete

scenarios easily comprehensible from people and (3) to balance participants with

different profile and background.

Open issues:

Dora Baltea: the only way to ease the improvement of river governance style is

strengthen the transformation process with tools and methods showing that a different

management approach is not only possible but useful.

28

Photo of conclusions and needs from the table PCS Dora Baltea & Inn – Engadin

29

PCS Soča (SI)

Participants:

Giancarlo Gusmaroli (CIRF), Emeline Hassenforder (IRSTEA), Daniela Ribeiro (ZRC-

SAZU), Rob Collins (The Rivers Trust), Jana Podgornik (PRC), Miro Kristan (PRC),

Dušan Jesenšek (PRC), Klemen Šavli (IzVRS), Uroš Robič (IzVRS), Mitja Bricelj

(MOP).





How to establish a formal cooperation between Soča River Foundation and current

competent institutions in the field of water management?

Which sectoral competent authorities should be involved from priority point of view?

Need for Soča River Foundation to be recognised as a link between stakeholders

and authorities (local and national level).

How to improve the funding of the Soča River Foundation (possible financial

mechanisms)?

Conclusions:

- The SRF is in a tensed political position: it has lost the political support of the

Ministry of Environment and its missions seems to be partially conflicting with

the ones of the River Basin Authority. Yet the RBA focuses on the administrative

part of water management, not on the participatory part. And it does not have

any budget for participation.

- This explains why experts suggested to focus on small scale issues and some

sectors for a start and to act as a catalyst among the stakeholders in the river

basin : it was argued that, in that way, the SRF could show its added-value to

the different stakeholders (and to the Ministry)

- Giancarlo Gusmaroli also suggested at some stage to work more closely with

different communities in different places in the river basin in order to multiply the

number of deliberative arenas (this is what is meant by “an advice to include a

wider range of representatives was stated” )

- It was also advised to start with concrete actions rather than with the

formalisation of the SRF(« The formal structure of the SRF shouldn’t be the key

issue » > actually it is one of the key issues, but maybe not in the short term)

- The transboundary aspect was also raised : the position of SRF in that respect

has to be clear

30

- It was also mentioned that the SRF needs to think in terms of participatory

process, and not only a succession of events, in order to have an overall

coherence and make clear to participants from the beginning what are the

objectives and the margins of maneuver.

Soča River Fundation (SRF) has been established to support better participation and

harmonised decision making. In the next processes the SRF will continue with bottom

up approach and will have to address the regional water authority administration. The

Soča River Foundation has to focus on smaller issues. It will try to create a discussion

area to solve issues and act as a catalyst for processes. The formal structure of the

SRF shouldn’t be the key issue. In the round table discussion an advice to include a

wider range of representatives was stated. In the end of the discussion the issue of

involvement of stakeholders was raised – where and when a process of stakeholder

involvement is successful, and how should it be evaluated if SRF actions were

successful or not.

Open issues:

The information/data is not distributed among all stakeholders, there is no key player

that would do that and maybe SRF should/could start to be the provider of proper

information/data to stakeholders.

31

Photo of conclusions and needs from the table PCS Soča

32

PCS Steyr River

Participants at the table: Lukas Egarter Vigl, Klaus Michor, Susanne Muhar, Stefan

Schneiderbauer, Alexandra Schwaiger, Franz Überwimmer, Suzana Vurunić



How to inform about a draft of a river protection ordinance?


How to gain awareness of the ecosystem service concept and development

options in the participation process and in the online survey?

Background:

In the frame of SPARE project a participatory process takes place in the catchment of

Steyr River in Upper Austria with the following objectives:

1. Ensure a participative process that includes and makes visible the points of view of

different stakeholders from the Steyr river catchment.

Make interests and conflicts over the use of water offer a platform for conflicting

actors to come together and work on common development objectives and

perspectives for the region.

2. Together with stakeholders evaluate the river related ecosystem services in the

Steyr River catchment and create awareness on water management and water

usage

Increase awareness of the citizens about all types of ecosystem services of the

river Steyr.

3. Together with stakeholders derivate development objectives to ensure sustainable

water management of the water resources and riverine environment in the Steyr

River catchment

Involve a maximum number of citizens in the development of objectives for

water management and make them part of the decision process

Therefore five Representative Group Meetings with stakeholders and citizens of the

region and a large scale online survey are held in the region.

In the next Representative Group Meeting a draft version of an ordinance containing

regulations to protect natural river stretches will be presented. Therefore we want to

discuss with IKEW-experts how to inform best about this planned ordinance.

In the next months an online-survey among the whole population of the project area is

planned to

evaluate the results of the Representative Group,

create new development options and

increase awareness of ecosystem services.

33

Therefore we want to discuss with IKEW-experts how to gain awareness of ecosystem

services and development options of natural river stretches in our participatory

process.

Conclusions:

How to inform about a draft of a river protection ordinance?

→ come from a larger scale (WFD, ICPDR, RBMP)

→ vision that the protection ordinance is a chance and not a handicap for

the region should come from the stakeholders and citizens: Don’t “sell” the

ordinance as a chance for the region.

→ be careful in the wording: Use “preservation” instead of “conservation”

→ designing of maps: no excessive marking (red or fat lines) of the

protected stretches

How to gain awareness of ecosystem service concept and development options

in the participatory process and in the online survey

→ describe scenarios

→ describe development perspectives (storytelling)

→ create future visions for the next generations

→ describe the ecosystem services in a way that people understand the

value of the natural rivers and how to use them in a sustainable way.

34

Photo of conclusions and needs from the table PCS Steyr River

35

Session 4

Presentation of the PCS results, discussion and final comments.

In session 4 results from session 3 were presented by each PCS but in this report they

are described as part of session 3 because of the consistency of content.

At the end of the workshop the participants agreed that IKEW was fruitful, that selected

experts made an impact and wished to stay in touch professionally on long term via

some kind of social network such as LinkedIn.

36

Pictures

43

Annex 1 - Information material of the IKEW

AIM OF THE WORKSHOP

The SPARE project aims at exchanging, adapting and capitalising strategic planning

and river management experiences across different spatial & governance scales.

SPARE acts in a transdisciplinary way combining socio-political, economic and

ecological assets and integrating inputs from different stakeholders and beneficiaries.

Five pilot case study sites in five participating Alpine countries form the core of our

project. In these areas good practices, policies and tools addressing the field of river

management are currently being developed and tested.

One of the main issues addressed in the SPARE project and the pilot case study sites

is active participation of all stakeholders in integrated river management.

The aim of the Workshop is to support the Pilot Case Study sites by recognizing

different reference practices and knowledge exchange that could successfully support

their needs to improve public participation within the framework of Integrated River

Ecosystem Management. For that the following challenges will be addressed:





Challenge C: How can we successfully introduce the ecosystem services (ES)

concept into participation and decision-making processes?

In the continuation invited experts are introduced. For more productive work also

instructions for Session 2 and 3 are presented in more detail.

44

INVITED EXPERTS

Mrs HELENE MASLIAH-GILKAROV

Current position or work: The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube

River (ICPDR), Austria

Contact: [email protected]

Short introduction:

Technical Expert for Public Participation &

Communication. Highly experienced ICPDR staff

member in the ICPDR-Secretariat in Vienna. Mrs

Masliah-Gilkarov is in charge of the technical support for

ICPDR Contracting Parties on issues related to public

participation as well as the coordination of the

Communication Activities on behalf of the ICPDR

Secretariat. On her agenda with the ICPDR, she develops communication and outreach

projects as well as actively supports the public participation expert group and ICPDR

international endeavours in the Danube River Basin and beyond. A political scientist and

specialist of international relations trained in international universities abroad, Ms. Masliah-

Gilkarov worked for over 10 years in International Communications at viadonau, the Austrian

Waterway management company where she developed a broad portfolio of public information,

stakeholder management and outreach activities in a Danubian environment. With a

background in political science and international relations, she is also a strong advocate of

public participation.

Most relevant practices for IKEW challenges:

Stakeholder Involvement and the Joint Statement on navigation and environment which

has paved the way for the platina Manual and the ongoing METEET initiative,

Danube Day, an event that mobilises every year on 29 June more than 25,000 people

and 4000 organisations Danube-basin wide.

mailto:[email protected]

45

Mr ROB COLLINS

Current position or work: Head of Policy, The Rivers Trust, UK


Short introduction:

Head of Policy and Science at the Rivers Trust since

2012 and undertaking a range of policy and technical

work engaging with Government and those sectors

impacting upon the water environment including Local

Authorities, Businesses and Water Companies. In

addition to participation in Interreg and LIFE+ funded

European water projects, Rob is a key member of a team

providing support to the Catchment Based Approach

(CaBA) initiative across England that drives collaborative

partnership working at a river catchment scale. Rob has

a background in catchment management with a focus upon water quality, water resources and

modelling. Prior to joining The Rivers Trust, Rob worked for 5 years at the European

Environment Agency where his role encompassed the analysis of information reported across

Europe under the Water Framework Directive.


The Catchment Based Approach (CaBA) in England.

It provides many examples of relevance to SPARE and its case studies. CaBA partnerships,

bringing local knowledge and expertise, are active in each of the 100+ Water Framework

Directive river catchments across England, including those cross border with Wales. More than

10000 organisations are engaged with CaBA nationwide including NGOs, Water Companies,

Local Authorities, Government Agencies, Landowners, Angling Clubs, Farmer Representative

Bodies, Academia Local Businesses and Local Communities.

Importantly CaBA includes local community and citizen science groups and has developed

guidance material on how to engage this key stakeholder and provided citizen science tools

that can be used to provide a ‘weight of evidence’ in decision-making, helping also to empower

such groups.


46

A number of CaBA Partnerships adopt an Ecosystem Services Approach to catchment

management, using a stakeholder-led approach to mapping ecosystem service benefits, and

using this to identify solutions to enhance the provision of these services.

Shared information platforms have also been developed for some partnerships. These enable

data from all sources, including community groups. to be captured in an openly accessible

location, helping all partners to develop a shared understanding of issues and solutions.

47

Mr JEAN-EMMANUEL ROUGIER

Current position or work: Founding partner and co-manager at Lisode, France


Short introduction:

A founding partner of Lisode, consultancy company specialized in

participatory processes engineering (design, training,

implementation, evaluation). That is to say, they provide full range

of services to “planning managers” (public authorities in Europe

and MENA, development brokers in developing countries, some

few private operators, etc.) in order to include

“citizens/stakeholders/users/excluded” into some sort of decision making process (diagnostic,

planning, evaluation, etc.) concerning a common resource (urban and agricultural water, urban

planning, protected areas, fisheries, etc.). Their projects are mainly in France, MENA, and

South and Central America. The company is a spin-off (10 years ago) of the joint research unit

“G-EAU” (IRSTEA/CIRAD/IRD France). They still have research projects with their “historic”

partners IRSTEA and CIRAD. www.lisode.com


Guidance: Guide de concertation territoriale et de facilitation (only in French so far)

“Participatory Methods Toolkit. A practitioners’ manual.” (King Baudouin Foundation)

Issues which could be addressed at the IKEW:

1. Three pillars of a successful citizen mobilization:

a. It’s important (they come);

b. They trust their participation will be useful (they are committed to the workshops)

c. They trust their participation will be used (they trust the results of the participatory

process they have been involved into, they will come back)

2. Citizens’ association is:

a. Not the citizens themselves

b. An opportunity to have a relay for empowering citizens and preparing their

integration to the decision-making process

c. A tool for some stakeholders already included in the game to increase their

legitimacy, and the weight of their stakes

d. A way for having the label “participatory water management inside”, but…

3. Tools for participation (http://www.lisode.com/our-tools (for instance) are:

a. The last problem to deal with

b. Never a miracle solution to the others important problems (see below)

c. Well known by the experts

4. The main (ranked) constraints for successfully involving citizens in water management:


http://www.lisode.com/

http://www.lisode.com/our-tools

48

a. Decision by the concerned politicians to plan, fund, and implement a true and

sincere involvement of citizens into the decision-making process

b. Acceptation/decision by the concerned technical administrations/institutions to

plan, fund and implement a true and sincere involvement of citizens into the decision-

making process

c. Knowledge about how to do it

d. Means for doing it

49

Mr LUKAS EGARTER VIGL

Current position or work: EURAC Research · Spatial Ecology, Italy


Short introduction:

He’s carrying out socio-ecological research in mountain

environments on various temporal and spatial scales ranging from

ecosystem to landscape level with a special focus on land use

dynamics and its impacts on ecosystem services provision. Next

to this, his work focuses on the analyses of agro-ecosystems

affected by changing environmental parameters (climate change),

mainly employing geospatial modelling techniques. Currently, I

am involved in two large EU funded projects, namely the AlpES

project and the REBECKA project, respectively as a work package leader and as the Co-PI.


Guidelines of a common understanding of ES (ensuring to speak the same language)

Mapping & Assessing of ES (stakeholder driven/targeted approaches over multiple

scales)

WebGIS (Dissemination and availability, knowledge transfer)

Capacity building model (interactive tools to make the ES concept more practical).


50

Mr GIANCARLO GUSMAROLI

Current position or work: Technical Director at the Italian Centre for River Restoration

(www.cirf.org) and Board Member and Secretary at the European Centre for River Restoration

(www.ecrr.org)


Short introduction:

Academic background in Environmental Engineering,

since 15 years he advices at national and international

level in the field of sustainable and integrated river

management. Main areas of interest range from

watercourse governance and integrated assessment

to fluvial hydromorphology and river restoration. His

expertize deals specifically with inclusive and

integrated decision making processes at catchment

scale, with special know-how in “River Contracts”

design, implementation and evaluation. Currently he is the scientific coordinator of the Interreg

Med “WetNet” project, whose main objective is the testing and dissemination of participatory

agreements for the management of wetlands at the Mediterranean level.


River contracts (orig. I CONTRATTI DI FIUME)

Voluntary & participatory instruments of land use planning; they are thought for an integrated

management of the hydrographic basins recover and protection. It is the ‘signing of agreement’

permitting to adopt a system of rules where the criteria of public utility, economic return, social

value, and environmental sustainability are considered equal in the reseach of effective

solutions for water resources restoration and protection. Such instruments make possible

integrated politics of river ecological restoration, hydraulic safety, landscape and fruition

protection. These themes involve not only the public bodies, but also the collectivity. The

adoption of these methods and instruments gives to the citizens the basis to protect and

valorize with a participatory approach the natural resources.

http://www.cirf.org/

http://www.ecrr.org/


51

Mr KLAUS MICHOR

Current position or work: Managing Director at Revital Integrative Naturraumplanung,

Austria


Short introduction:

Studied landscape ecology and landscaping at the

University of Natural Resources and Applied Life

Sciences in Vienna and has been working as a

freelance landscape planner in Lienz since 1989.

Recently mainly acts as manager of large-scale

synergistic projects on flood prevention, ecology and

recreation.


Communication work within the framework of concrete large-scale river-based planning

and implementation projects. The main focus is on the conception and implementation

of participatory processes.

Main questions constantly confronted and could be addressed at the IKEW:

Who are the relevant stakeholders, what interests do they have?


How must communication processes be built up in integrative planning processes?


52

Mr OLIVIER CHAIX

Current position or work: INTEGRALIA SA, Switzerland, Director and owner


Short introduction:

Olivier Chaix is a noted independent Swiss expert in Water

Management educated at the Swiss Federal Institute of

Technology. After first working for Water Supplies in sub-

Saharan and Northern Africa, he went on to manage

Waterpower and Dam rehabilitation projects in Switzerland

before redirecting his career towards Water Pollution Control

and Resources Management. He is the initiator of Integrated

Water Management in Switzerland and is Vice President of the

Swiss Water Association. After 10 years on the board of

Directors of one of Switzerland’s biggest Engineering groups,

he decided to become more independent and founded INTEGRALIA SA, a Consulting Firm

where he is working with federal (national), cantonal, regional and greater local water

authorities in the 3 linguistic regions of Switzerland. His focus is to combine Water

Management and Environmental Engineering skills, creative Project Development and the

ability to make people join forces and work together towards defining a common goal and

achieving it.


Swiss “Direct Democracy” System

In the very particular Swiss “Direct Democracy” System, it is not regional or local government,

which take most water management related decisions, but the ordinary people themselves.

They do so by casting ballots or during local “general assemblies”, where the people actually

meet and dialogue with the local authorities (and their consultants) before taking decisions by

raising hands. This very traditional decision-making ensures that the people are always

involved. However, it can make change extremely difficult, because, as often only few citizens

will gather at local “general assemblies”, this enables a minority of opponents to hinder all

changes and block any new idea.


53

In this context, Citizen Information and active involvement is absolutely crucial, especially

when a Water Management project is transferring activities and prerogatives from the local to

the regional level (e.g. River Basin), or if the project implies raising water taxes, which is often

the case. There is a permanent fear of loss of control by the citizens.

To support the workshop different practical “hands on“ examples exist of both, success stories

and failures. However, as they mostly happen at the local or regional level, there are usually

no internet sites available and, if any, only publications in French or German.

SESSION 2: ADDRESSING CHALLENGES – GENERAL

We are aware there are no boundaries between addressed challenges; efficient

implementation of an action within one challenge can also provoke positive

consequences within other two challenges.

Short instructions on Session 2:

Main objective of this Session2 is to open the mind of Pilot Case Studies

(PCS/s) on potential solutions/practices to tackle each challenge and support

action planning on PCSs according to their needs & goals of PCSs.

Challenges are discussed in a consecutive way. At the beginning of each

challenge the moderator opens recognized general needs and questions.

For each challenge the experts will introduce their own experiences and present

their or other reference practices which could support the challenge and specific

needs. By the expressed experiences we indicated which experts will contribute

the most to certain challenge (see below under description of the challenges).

Then the rest of the experts can give their short point of view on a current

challenge. Other participants will have the opportunity to express some

additional questions or a need for clarification, but with focus on general or

common issues. If participants have more PCS specific questions, they write it

down with the indication of a targeted person (the expert or other participant)

and pass it to the stuff responsible for the Discussion Needs Table. These PCS

specific questions will be addressed later in Session 3. The experts will have

the opportunity to answer the additional general questions.

Closure of the challenge by the moderator.

54

A: What role should citizens associations have in river management and how

can we assure their long-term success?

Mainly supported by Mr ROB COLLINS and Mr JEAN-EMMANUEL ROUGIER

In many Alpine countries, citizens are more and more willing to be involved in water-

related decision-making, whether infrastructural, social, political or other. In three of

five SPARE Pilot Case Study sites, citizens of the river basin have created associations

in order to make their voice heard by competent authorities.

Specific needs to be addressed and supported by reference practices:

Articulation with the institutional decision-making process. Should these

associations lobby for a representative seat at the local institutions? How can

these associations improve the top-down/bottom-up communication or be

recognized as a link between stakeholders and authorities (local and national

level)?

What degree of “institutionalization” is adequate to assure true and sincere

citizens involvement? How to prevent the citizens to become “institutionalized”?

Financing of these citizen associations. As emerging organisations, many have

difficulties ensuring the continuous and long-term coordination of the

participatory process. In this context, where should they look for funding or what

are possible financial instruments? Should they be financed by their

membership and project activities/results or a priori by public financial

resources?

How to prevent a citizen association is not “taken over” by certain stakeholders

and their interests?

How the initial citizen association structure should be established? Should or

must be changed during the time? What are main reasons for changes?

Are there differences if an association is involved in decision making at strategic

or at project level?

Should an association be additionally promoted or their working results already

promote it? How to improve the recognition of an association to be useful and

supportive in IRBM?

B: How can we motivate citizens to be actively involved in river management in

the long term?

55

Mainly supported by Mrs HELENE MASLIAH-GILKAROV, Mr KLAUS MICHOR, Mr

OLIVIER CHAIX, Mr ROB COLLINS and Mr GIANCARLO GUSMAROLI

Many citizens in Alpine countries are eager to be more actively involved in water

management. Nevertheless, pilots of participatory processes often have difficulties “to

make citizens attend”. Similarly, many participatory processes experience a decrease

of citizen engagement over time. This may be due to several reasons, including lack

of time to participate, scepticism about whether their goals will actually be considered

by national/regional/local authorities, doubt that their proposals will be implemented

due to lack of financial resources for implementation, etc.


How can we increase citizen motivation and respond to their doubts in order to

ensure their long-term involvement?

How to build and ensure a long lasting involvement of citizen or at least avoid

participation fatigue?

How important is to consider the cultural/social attitude/relation of local

communities to the citizens participation? For example the same participation

method/approach for river planning can have very good impacts in one country

but not in others.

How to efficiently recognize relevant stakeholders and what are their interests?


How must communication processes be built up in integrative planning

processes?

C: How can we successfully introduce the ecosystem services (ES) concept into

participation and decision-making processes?

Mainly supported by Mr LUKAS EGARTER VIGL, Mr GIANCARLO GUSMAROLI,

Mr KLAUS MICHOR and Mr ROB COLLINS

One of the objectives of the SPARE project is the promotion of ecosystem services

and their introduction into the decision-making process. Based on experience with

stakeholders in the pilot case study sites it is clear that there is not only a knowledge

56

gap with regard to the methodological incorporation of the ES concept but also with

regard to a common understanding of the ES concept.


How to reach a common understanding of the ES concept among participants?

How to use it in a practical way when working with citizens with different

knowledge what ES or ES concept are?

How can we improve the understanding and acceptance of the ES concept as

a decision supporting tool, which considers the natural state (or close to natural

state) of rivers as a guarantee for the sustainable provision of ES? How to

evaluate the natural river state if considered as a development option?

How can be the Ecosystem services approach efficiently implemented in the

frame of the Integrated River Ecosystem or Basin Management?

How to include Ecosystem Services in the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) process?

57

SESSION 3: PCS TABLES – ADDRESSING CONCRETE

CHALLENGES

Soca Basin

Drôme

Inn/ Engadin

Dora Baltea

Upper Austria

58

About PCSs:

http://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/spare/en/pilot-areas,

Photobooks and infographics:

http://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/spare/en/infoservice/multimedia

Short instructions on Session 3:

The PCSs work on their needs, questions. They search for best actions and try

to define long and short term actions. How detail to go it depends on the PCSs.

Each PCS works at separate table facilitator and assistant are only two persons

who are fixed at their PCS table and fully working on their PCS plan.

Session is divided into 4 periods with mini breaks in between to assure experts

and other participants can move to other PCS tables, defined and harmonized

on the Discussion Need Table.

In the first period (1 hour) the experts selected and invited by a certain PCS at

first discuss the challenges at this PCS's table (if no changes and agreements

between PCSs).

The Discussion Need Table can also be updated during this session,

moderators (IzVRS) collect and harmonize the PCS tables needs and

availability of the experts, observers and other participants with the PCS

assistants.

Then in mini breaks on the basis of the needs of PCSs for the assistance experts

and other move to other PCS table to support a work there for next three periods

(30 min each). Also other participants can visit a work at other tables to get

additional information or just to follow certain expert. If appropriate (similar

needs/problems and a need for a same support) PCS tables can be joined, and

later also separated if so.

The youth from WWF will join the Session at mini break around 16:00h, they will

be distributed around the PCS tables, where PCS table facilitator will present

them a short introduction on the most relevant issues.

In the last period the PCS table should finalize the plan/results and if so, express

the unsolved issues, risks etc.

http://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/spare/en/pilot-areas

http://www.alpine-space.eu/projects/spare/en/infoservice/multimedia

59

Dora Baltea, Italy

Related PCS partner: ARPAV, Regional Agency for Environmental Protection of

Aosta Valley

Contact person: Mr Andrea Mammoliti Mochet

Current state of level of public participation within river basin: In the Dora Baltea basin

(meaning Aosta Valley Region portion) the “river stakeholders” have mainly specific

interests related to “water use”: somehow the attention to rivers as self-standing

elements of cultural and geographical context is quite recent. Rivers have become

elements clearly identified and branded only as a result of quite recent evolution of

national and European set of laws. Simplifying maybe too much the concept we can

affirm that local communities are more interested to water than to rivers. The reasons

of this attitude have to be referred to cultural, social, environmental and historical

reasons and shall not be deepened in this project even if they strongly influence the

general perception of rivers in the PCS and consequently management and planning

approach.

Main actors and institutions concretely and/or officially involved in water use, water

management and river management planning issues related in the PCS can be listed

briefly as follow:

- Public administration thematic

services dealing with

- Energy

- Environmental assessment

- Agriculture

- Water management

- Landscape

- Tourism

- Regional Agency for Environment

Protection

- Farmers lobbies and associations

- Public hydropower companies

- Private hydropower companies

- Hydropower lobbies

- River Basin Management Authority

- Fishing association

- Municipalities

- Local committees & local

associations

- NGOs for nature protection -

LEGAMBIENTE

- NGOs for landscape protection -

FAI

- NGOs for nature protection &

citizen participation - VALLE

VIRTUOSA

- NGOs for public water good

guarantee & clean finance

mechanism - ATTAC

- Rafting- kayaking companies

1

- Single persons

Current legal framework for public participation within river basin management derives

from the top; With the declaration of “water public state” done by national law 36/94,

all users of water had to apply for recognition of their use right, under penalty of

forfeiture, enclosing relevant technical documentation. River and water resource

governance is now formally endorsed by public regional authority by its specific

management services listed above. Regional administration bodies are officially in

charge of water use and water concessions granted from national authority and river

basin management authority (Po river basin management authority for Dora Baltea

river).

Recognized weak points:

- no direct and pro-active participation in several aspects of river water

management, in particular in withdrawal demands & concession processes for

hydropower exploitation


A: River management citizens associations No concrete questions for now. B: Citizens active involvement

How could we take into consideration in advance interactions among participation models proposed to population and local cultural background? In my view, participation impacts can be strongly influenced from the cultural attitude of local communities to participation. Somehow, the same participation style for river planning could have very good impacts in Slovenia but being not fitting in France or in Italy due to cultural factors … at least, this is my perception.

Which are the key social / anthropological / cultural elements to be taken into consideration to adapt participation models to cultural and social background (i.e. river management hierarchy articulation, common decision making attitude, population average age, river property status, … )? Some hints coming from PCS-like experiences can be very useful …

Are private stakeholders involved only as water withdrawal demands or they concretely intervene directly and officially dealing with local communities and "their river / their water"?

Which is the role of public administrators? Are they like movie directors, football referees or sheriffs trying to keep calm?

How administrations avoid the risk of having lack of transparency in more scientifically steps of river management process? How they try to avoid to have "black boxes" weakening participation strength and credibility?

www.alpine-space.eu/SPARE

Drôme, France

Related PCS partner: SMRD, River Drôme watershed authority

Contact person: Ms Chrystel Fermond

Current state of level of public participation within river basin management: In the

Drôme river catchment, representatives of water users, local official and state

institution are involved to the river management through the CLE (Local commission

of water management). Within it, these representatives design and decide together the

local plan for water management (SAGE). All information produced is then published

and available online and in paper format in a public place.

The SAGE before being validate passes by a public survey to gather citizens’ opinions

about it. In the end, the stakeholder / public engagement, stands between consultation

and involvement.

Current legal framework for public participation within river basin management comes

from the top. Participation is framed by French law (DCE’s 14th article and Aarhus

convention transcription) so: information needs to be accessible to the public. Every

project that affects citizens and their environment needs to pass public survey. It is

financed by the project holder. Moreover, the CLE is in charge of the elaboration of the

SAGE. The CLE is composed of 3 colleges which are not payed for their involvement

in this mission but the public institution which carries the SAGE is financed by public

funds:

1. State representatives: 25 % or less

2. Local officials: 50% or more

3. Users: 25% or more


- Public don’t really know about the SAGE and CLE and even about our

institution. There is a kind of mistrust in this Local water commission (CLE).


- College of Users is defined in Article R212-30 in French Environment Code and

it integrates "at least one representative of the Chamber of Agriculture, one

representative of the Chamber of territorial Industries and Commerce, one

representative of co-ownership organizations or one representative of landed or

forested properties, one representative of the federation of accredited fishing

and water protection associations, one representative of environmental

organizations and one representative of consumer organizations; plus if

required, one representative of hydropower producers, one representative of

unique agency for irrigation and one representative for professional fishing."

Other: in our PCS the participation process within the SPARE project already started

(since December 2016)



What communication methods shall we use to touch and get motivated catchment citizens?

How to build and ensure a lasting involvement of citizen or at least avoid participation fatigue? *

How to keep a dynamic participatory process with very limited time and money means?

How to assure the representative group will persist after SPARE?

How introduce citizens into the current work and decision process?

How to select representative citizens to contribute in the local commission of water management (CLE) in order to guarantee by the time their representativeness?

How to regulate disturbing participation? Which operational tools are available? B: Citizens active involvement

How to build and ensure a long lasting involvement of citizen or at least avoid participation fatigue? *


How to include Ecosystem Services in the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) process? How to use it in a practical way when working with citizens with different level of perspective what ES concept is?


Inn – Engadin, Switzerland

Related PCS partner: Foundation Pro Terra Engadine

Contact person: Ms Angelika Abderhalden

The current state of level of public participation: Informing level. The wider public is

involved in IRBM from the top. The PTE has decided in its strategy to start IRBM. A

stakeholder process is underway in order to implement the strategic work. Within this

process, the decision to initiate IRBM was given by the regional and local stakeholders.

It was not presented to the wider public and for this reason we classify it as a ‘from the

top down’ approach.

In the first instance, public participation was financed by foundations. Now, it is

financed by different PTE projects, especially in the case canton Grison’s IRBM pilot

case study.


- Firstly, finance for public participation is not currently available. Secondly,

Engadin is a small region in which the same individuals are always asked to

participate as stakeholders. As a result, these people sometimes become tired

of participation processes. Therefore, the aim to involve the public is not easily

achievable.

- In addition, the information given about IRBM is not always recognized as

something important. It is not so easy to show the importance of IRBMs in an

understandable way. It is easier to show the importance when the stakeholder

is actively involved.


How can decision makers or administrations be convinced of the additional value of an integrated river basin management?


The IRBM is started by a regional association. Are there known examples how it is possible to carry on the started process of an IREM?


How can a long term participation of citizens and stakeholders be achieved (with a low budget)?


Are there experiences how to involve citizens in planning processes of protection and use of the water resource of a whole catchment area?


How can the Ecosystem services approach successful implemented in the frame of the IRBM?


Soča, Slovenia

Related PCS institution: Institute for Water of the Republic of Slovenia Contact person: Mr Uroš Robič & Mr Miro Kristan (PRC)

Water management in Slovenia in the content of competencies is more or less

centralized. Competent authority is the Ministry for Environment and Spatial Planning

(MOP) which also manage Water Fund (financial sources collected from water users).

More operational department, established in 2015 is Slovenian Water Agency (slov.

Direkcija za vode) which has 8 water district agencies or offices. One of those water

districts, which follow natural catchment delineation, is also Water Agency for Soča

Basin. For concrete actions and measures implementation are responsible

concessionaire companies (Koncesionar). Their designation is defined by periodic

procurement and contract.

In the past (before 1990) local stakeholder involvement in decision making (better

introduction of bottom-up approach) was more present by involvement of so called

Water Associations. They worked more closely with local inhabitants and their interests

were more thoroughly incorporated and harmonized, also intersectoraly. Nevertheless

this need to improve local participation is present, so national level is looking for better

involvement of local stakeholders in the water management. The competent ministry

(Ministry for the Environment and Spatial Planning) namely recognized that if strategic

decision making in water management is sufficiently harmonized across sectors also

next implementation phases are more operational and efficient.

To support better participation and harmonized decision making in 2014 Soča

Foundation has been established.



How to establish a formal cooperation between Soča Foundation and current competent institutions in the field of water management?


Which sectoral competent authorities should be involved from priority point of view?

Need for Soča Foundation to be recognised as a link between stakeholders and authorities (local and national level).

How to improve the funding of the Soča Foundation (possible financial mechanisms)?

B: Citizens active involvement No concrete questions for now. C: Implementation of Ecosystem services concepts No concrete questions for now.


Styer & grosser Bach, Austria

Related PCS institution: Office of the Upper Austria Government Contact person: Mr Franz Überwimmer, Mr Stefan Schneiderbauer

Brief introduction of a PARTICIPATORY APPROACH IN RIVER MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING IN AUSTRIA River Basin Management Plan: Austria adopted the WFD into national law in 2003 with the amendment to the Austrian Water Act (WRG). The mandatory six-year implementation cycle is laid down in § 55 h WRG (drafting of national river basin management plans/NGPs). The 1st NGP was presented by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management (BMLFUW) in 2009. It will now be followed up and replaced by the 2nd NGP for the 2016-2021 period. The 2nd NGP shall also support the planning authorities in taking a balanced and cost-efficient approach to protect and improve our water bodies. The draft to the 2nd NGP was officially presented on 21 January 2015 (along with the draft to the 1st Flood Risk Management Plan). In accordance with Article 14 of the WFD (public information and consultation), the public was given the opportunity to submit their comments to the BMLFUW by 21st July. This feedback is now incorporated into the definitive document. The River Dialogues: Between 2008 and 2012 ca. 11.000 Upper Austrians have discussed relevant topics about „their“ river – the “river dialogue”, first an initiative of the BMLFUW and Upper Austria, which was rolled out to other regions in the past years. Public information and consultation is one of the cornerstones of the EU Water Framework Directive. According to the provisions of article 14 to encourage the involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of this Directive –a „River Dialogue“ in addition to the more formal steps foreseen in the Directive. Nowadays a new focus is on river ecology and on achieving more natural conditions; Austrian rivers have been for centuries subject to modification of banks and straightening of river courses in order to enable use of hydropower, to protect against floods or to convert wetlands into arable land to be self-sufficient in food production. In line with the new focus on river ecology further – often very costly investments – will be necessary to achieve „good ecological status“ or „good ecological potential“; prerequisite for achieving a certain willingness to pay is to create public consciousness. Austria has a leading position in successfully implementing strategies for awareness raising in the water sector. This was the precondition for the model „River Dialogue“. The methodology was then sharpened towards the requirements of the European Water Framework Directive as well as on regionality.


„Only the one who talk to each other are capable to implement successful projects“. The River Dialogue takes this testimony as granted. It is a highly qualified method with a strong regional and individual approach. So far the dialogues managed to inform the stakeholders as well as the broad public of the specific river catchment and to raise consciousness and even more a better understanding for the hydrological measures in place respectively foreseen for the future. All citizens have been invited to discuss their personal future vision for the river. It does not occur by chance that the River Dialogue is highly respected. On one hand the relationship to the „personal“ river is generally high. On the other hand the process elements were considered precisely and evaluated throughout the range of the dialogues up to now: as first step the stakeholders – like representatives of water management departments, fishery and nature conservation – present their plans for the future shape and structure of the river. In the second phase the citizens of the overall river catchment are invited to take positions within an online-inquiry. The third step is set by a local conference – the real dialogue – between public, regional stakeholders and representatives of the water management units of the ministry and the particular federal states. Until now, no River Dialogue was carried out in our PCS region, the catchment of Steyr River. This was one of the reasons why we choose this region as our PCS region in the SPARE project. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/water/implrep2007/pdf/good_examples.pdf https://www.land-oberoesterreich.gv.at/104638.htm www.flussdialog.at Several activities in raising water awareness: In Austria raising water awareness is of prime importance, the aim being to educate the population on the prudent use of water resources. At the same time, water should be recognised as a precious natural treasure that takes the form of our beautiful rivers and lakes, which are an important source of recreation and subsistence. But water may also present hazards - therefore, raising awareness among the population on issues of "flood control", i.e. individual precautions - ranks high in priority. For many years now, the issues cited above have been brought to the attention of the public in numerous projects and campaigns, on different channels and for a host of different target groups by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management (BMLFUW). The most important projects of the BMLFUW include the youth platform "Generation Blue", the "Neptune Water Award", and the "Wasseraktiv" platform. The "Wasseraktiv" platform offers the public the opportunity to get up-to-date information on water and to participate in campaign events. In the year 2009, the project "Aktiv für unser Wasser – Lebende Flüsse, saubere Seen" (Active for our water – living rivers, clean lakes) was launched in order to provide the Austrian population an attractive opportunity for involvement under the EU Water Framework Directive. For this purpose, it was necessary to adapt the contents of the Austrian National Water Management Plan (NGP) to make it available in a modern

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/water/implrep2007/pdf/good_examples.pdf

https://www.land-oberoesterreich.gv.at/104638.htm

http://www.flussdialog.at/


web design, in a manner that is easily understood and clearly laid out. More than 700 comments were submitted in 2009. Ever since then, wasseraktiv has been providing daily information on interesting water themes. This internet platform places particular value on interaction. Users can upload water pictures, add a Google map marker and comments. This internet platform is flanked by a popular fanpage on Facebook (www.facebook.com/wasseraktiv). There are up to 400 daily posts to this fan page and it already has 3.550 fans. One of the elements central to platform promotion and networking, is link placement on the water websites of other important institutions. Every year, there are special activities designed to generate traffic, such as the Wasseraktiv Photography Competition under the slogan "Geheimtipp Wasser" (best-kept secret: water) in the year 2011. Generation Blue (www.generationblue.at) is the Austrian youth platform on water topics. A cool homepage and attractive activities serve to build awareness. Generation Blue offers young people innovative projects and means of communication, enabling them to become thoroughly informed on the entire range of water-related subjects. The aim of this educational campaign is to raise sustainable awareness on the no. 1 food "water". Generation Blue gives young people the opportunity to get informed on water using an attractive web platform and Facebook. Games, news, films, interesting water information. There is much more to be found on the youth page. The "Teacher service" section contains teaching aids, such as "WasserWerkstatt" (water workshop) for download or thematic information and videos to order. “Danube Art Master” is a Danube-wide competition, hosted by the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), which calls upon children and young people from all Danube countries to create works of art made from Danube debris and objects found on the river banks. In Austria, Danube Art Master is conducted by Generation Blue. The "Danube Challenge" is a sustainable youth water project (since 2007) in which school students from all of Austria are familiarised with issues relating to water and rivers via experience and knowledge stations in various competitions – also referred to as "Challenges". Its aim is to increase awareness of the significance of the Danube River with its tributaries as Austria's lifeline. A web cam project (“flood control live on the Web”) has been launched just recently to show young people that flood, torrent, and avalanche control really work out in nature. With the help of live images captured on web cam at two locations, young people and interested adults can now view the progress made at such construction sites at any time of day and night. The web cams were set up at two selected project locations: https://www.bmlfuw.gv.at/en/water/Water-and-the-public.html www.wasseraktiv.at

http://www.generationblue.at/

https://www.bmlfuw.gv.at/en/water/Water-and-the-public.html

http://www.wasseraktiv.at/


www.generationblue.at



No concrete questions for now. B: Citizens active involvement No concrete questions for now. C: Implementation of Ecosystem services concepts

Eco system service concept: Best practice approaches for the utilization of the eco system service concept in water related participation processes?

Creation of awareness and increasing the acceptance of water related protection concepts: How can the additional benefit of water related protection concepts be illustrated/communicated to achieve the following objectives as best as possible? • identification of the residents with protection and conservation objectives • increasing the acceptance of government regulation in water protection/conservation

Valorisation of the potential of areas of unspoiled nature: How can water related potentials of areas of unspoiled natures be turned into non-materialistic or monetary values?

How can water related areas of unspoiled nature contribute to a positive regional development?

http://www.generationblue.at/


TRAVEL INFORMATION

Accommodation (A): M Hotel (Info: https://www.m-hotel.si/eng)

Address: Derčeva ulica 4

IKEW's Venue (B): Gospodarsko razstavišče – Prireditveni center

Ljubljana

(Ljubljana Exhibition and Convention Centre; (Info:

http://www.ljubljanafair.com/)

Address: Dunajska cesta 18

Dinner location (C): Vodnikov hram (Info: http://www.vodnikov-hram.si/)

Address: Vodnikov trg 2

https://www.m-hotel.si/eng

http://www.ljubljanafair.com/


Getting around:

By car

There is a big public car park near the IKEW venue, charging around 3,5 Eur per day

(info: http://www.ljubljanafair.com/for-visitors/parking)

Morning rush hour in Ljubljana has its peak at 7:50 h.

By public transport

We recommend using public transport, more info on daily bus lines and terms of use:

http://www.lpp.si/sites/default/files/lpp_si/stran/datoteke/shema_dnevnih_linij_septem

ber_2017.pdf

Map of daily bus lines and locations where you can buy bus card URBANA:

http://www.lpp.si/sites/default/files/lpp_si/stran/datoteke/shema_dnevnih_linij_lpp_z_

vrisanimi_prodajnimi_mesti_okt_2016.pdf

Cost of URBANA card: 2 Eur for the card plus 1.2 Eur per each ride (the amount must

be credited to the card before riding with the bus)

If you are a group of people we suggest to buy one card and when entering the bus

tell the driver for how many persons to charge for from the card.

- From M Hotel to IKEW’s Venue

Start: Bus station name Kino Šiška (here you can also buy URBANA at Tobacco store),

take bus number 8 (GAMELJNE – BRNČIČEVA)

Stop: Bus station name Razstavišče

- From M Hotel to Restaurant Vodnikov Hram

Start: Bus station name Kino Šiška, take bus number 1 (VIŽMARJE – MESTNI LOG),

1 D (VIŽMARJE – DOLGI MOST), 3 (LITOSTROJ – RUDNIK), 3 B (LITOSTROJ –

ŠKOFLJICA)

Stop: Bus station name Konzorcij (pedestrian zone)

http://www.ljubljanafair.com/for-visitors/parking

http://www.lpp.si/sites/default/files/lpp_si/stran/datoteke/shema_dnevnih_linij_september_2017.pdf

http://www.lpp.si/sites/default/files/lpp_si/stran/datoteke/shema_dnevnih_linij_september_2017.pdf

http://www.lpp.si/sites/default/files/lpp_si/stran/datoteke/shema_dnevnih_linij_lpp_z_vrisanimi_prodajnimi_mesti_okt_2016.pdf

http://www.lpp.si/sites/default/files/lpp_si/stran/datoteke/shema_dnevnih_linij_lpp_z_vrisanimi_prodajnimi_mesti_okt_2016.pdf


- From IKEW’s Venue to the Reastaurant Vodnikov Hram (1,5 km walking

distance)

Start: Bus station name Razstavišče, take bus number 6 (ČRNUČE – DOLGI MOST)

Stop: Bus station name Konzorcij (see above map and directions)

Taxi service has reasonable prices of around 3 - 4 Euros per drive. More info: Taxi

Metro. You can also use HOPIN mobile application to order among various taxi

services in Ljubljana. More info: HOPINTAXI app.

https://www.taximetro.si/?page_id=335

https://www.taximetro.si/?page_id=335

https://hopintaxi.com/en


Annex 2 - Power Point Presentations of invited experts

Content of Annex 2 can be found in a separate document due to the file size problems.

spare · the spare project aims at exchanging, adapting and capitalising strategic planning and...

Documents