shared vision planning one collaborative approach for achieving sustainable water resources n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Shared Vision Planning : One Collaborative Approach for Achieving Sustainable Water Resources PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Shared Vision Planning : One Collaborative Approach for Achieving Sustainable Water Resources

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 42

Shared Vision Planning : One Collaborative Approach for Achieving Sustainable Water Resources - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 141 Views
  • Uploaded on

Collaborative Planning - A Key to Green Infrastructure & Enviomental Sustainabilty. Shared Vision Planning : One Collaborative Approach for Achieving Sustainable Water Resources. Robert A. Pietrowsky Director, Institute for Water Resources & the International Center for

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Shared Vision Planning : One Collaborative Approach for Achieving Sustainable Water Resources


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    Presentation Transcript
    1. Collaborative Planning - A Key to Green Infrastructure & Enviomental Sustainabilty Shared Vision Planning : One Collaborative Approach for Achieving Sustainable Water Resources Robert A. Pietrowsky Director, Institute for Water Resources & the International Center for Integrated Water Resources Mgt. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 5th World Water Forum Istanbul, Turkey March 21, 2009

    2. MDG 7 Ensure environmental sustainability Inter-linkage with other MDG ‘s MDG 6:Combat malariaand other water bornediseases MDG 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger MDG 8:Develop a global partnershipfor development Contribution to Worldwide Initiatives IWRM approaches are essential for developing sustainable approaches for achieving the MDG’s

    3. Some Gloomy Global Water Arithmetic • Just under 1 billion (884 million) people lack access to safe water • 328 million in Sub-Saharan Africa, 285 million in South/SE Asia, 47 million in Latin America & Caribbean • 80% of diseases carried by water: 1 child every 8 seconds killed and 5-7 million people annually: $125 billion in workday losses/yr. • > 75% of these people live in water stressed areas (less then 1000cm): most in politically unstable regions • In Asia, > 2/3’s population live in areas where 80% of rainfall occurs in 20% of the year • 2.5 billion people (2 in 5) lack access to adequate sanitation • 1.2 billion have no access to sanitation facilities at all • World not on track to meet the MDG sanitation target • Majority w/out improved sanitation in Asia & Sub-Saharan Africa • Ecosystem Sustainability:20% of freshwater species near extinction

    4. Economy-Wide Impacts Rainfall & GDP growth: Zimbabwe 1978-1993 Rainfall & GDP growth: Ethiopia 1982-2000

    5. Increase access to, and effective use of, safe water and sanitation to improve human health; Improve water resources management and increase water productivity; Improve water security by strengthening cooperation on shared waters. Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 U.S. Objectives for International Water Resources

    6. Water Interdependencies & Global Change Trans-boundary Water Issues Population Growth & Migration Globalization Interconnected National Economies – Global Supply Chain Water Quality, Sanitation & Health Challenges Climate Change- Global Warming Water Hazard Vulnerabilities Disappearing Wetlands & Coasts Increased Competition for Water Energy-Water- Food Nexus Implications of Aging Infrastructure Basin/Watershed Scale, Inter-Sectoral Solutions Changing Societal Values Intergovernmental Partnerships Environmental Sustainability Advances in Science & Tech Participatory, Consensus- Based Decision-Making Multidisciplinary, Multi-Jurisdictional

    7. Contemporary Imperative to Collaborate New York Times OP-ED Column – “Why How Matters” , October 14, 2008 • Provides good summary of why trend towards collaboration is inevitable as our world (and our work, businesses, etc.) become more interconnected. • Friedman recalls a book called, “How: Why How We Do Anything Means Everything in Business (and in Life)”, by Dov Seidman. • Seidman's book basically argues that in our hyper- connected and transparent world, how you do things matters more than ever, because so many more people can now see how you do things, be affected by how you do things and tell others how you do things on the Internet anytime, for no cost and without restraint. Tom Friedman

    8. Friedman OP-ED Column – “Why How Matters” • “In a connected world,” Seidman told Friedman, “countries, governments & companies also have character, & their character — how they do what they do, how they keep promises, how they make decisions, how things really happen inside, how they connect & collaborate, how they engender trust, how they relate to their customers, to the environment & to the communities in which they operate — is now their fate.” • Freidman argues that given this inter-connectiveness, we need to get back to collaborating the old-fashioned way. • That is, people making decisions based on business judgment, experience, prudence, clarity of communications, in a transparent, open and forthright manner - ultimately it's all about character and trust.

    9. Friedman Gets to the Heart of It New York Times OP-ED Column – “Why How Matters” , October 14, 2008 • Friedman gets to the heart of it - Public Ethics matter, not just personal values. • Public ethics is the business of good government - how we work together, collaborate & implement fair rules, not just strong teams. • — Paul Noeldner - ethicalguidebook.com • Maple Bluff, Wisconsin Tom Friedman

    10. IRRIGATION RESERVOIR FISH HISTORIC PROPERTIES M&I WATER SUPPLY Fort Peck North Dakota TERNS AND PLOVERS RECREATION Garrison Montana HYDROPOWER South Dakota WETLAND HABITAT Oahe Big Bend ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Wyoming Fort Randall ENDANGERED SPECIES Gavins Point Iowa RIPARIAN HABITAT Nebraska WATER QUALITY Navigation Channel Missouri Colorado NAVIGATION Kansas TREATY AND TRUST RIVERINE FISH (Pallid Sturgeon) FLOOD CONTROL Contemporary Watershed Planning • Collaborative, shared visioning , consensus building approach • Partnerships between all levels of government • Early and continuous involvement by all stakeholders • Technical process of jointly building transparent analytical models • Multi-objective, environmentally sustainable • Watershed/river basin or systems scale • Operating projects monitored, adaptively managed

    11. Representative U.S. Partnering Illustrations ICIWaRM

    12. “ . . . re-operate damsto achieve moreeco-sustainable flows,while continuing tomeet human needs. ” Goal Purpose to develop ecosystem flow recommendations that create adequate conditions for all native species enough of the time. to facilitate effective and efficient management of important biological resources within the context of the Corps’ Civil Works and Regulatory missions. Sustainable Rivers ProjectA National Collaboration between - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers & TNC Memorandumof Understanding

    13. Corps of Engineers Partnership with The Nature Conservancy – TNC’s Sustainable Rivers Program Europe Seattle Willamette River Walla-Walla Portland Ashuelot River Northwestern Division St. Paul Great Lakes and Ohio River Division West River New England Mississippi Valley Division Buffalo North Atlantic Division New York Detroit Pittsburgh Chicago Omaha Philadelphia Sacramento Rock Island San Francisco Baltimore Huntington South Pacific Division Kansas City Louisville Norfolk St. Louis White / Black / Little Red Rivers Roanoke River Green River Los Angeles Tulsa Bill Williams River Nashville Wilmington Little Rock Memphis Albuquerque Southwestern Division Charleston South Atlantic Division Vicksburg Savannah River Savannah Big Cypress Creek Jacksonville Far East Fort Worth Mobile New Orleans Pacific Ocean Division Alaska Galveston Japan Honolulu

    14. Bill Williams River, Arizona, USA • Disproportionately important ecological value due to riparian habitat losses on Lower Colorado River • Best remaining native riparian woodland habitat on the Lower Colorado River ( Cottonwood-Willow ) • More than 340 bird species on the Bill Williams River National Wildlife Refuge, including: Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Yuma Clapper Rail ( federally listed ) ARIZONA Flagstaff Bill Williams River Phoenix Tucson 5th World Water Forum Istanbul 2009 14

    15. Recent BWR Activities • Evaluate performance of the water control plan • Establish BWR ecological flow requirements • March 2005 Eco-Flow workshop with experts • Technical support for ecosystem management… HEC-RAS MDSWMS HEC-ResSim HEC-RAS MDSWMS Regulated and natural river flows IHA HEC-EFM MODFLOW

    16. Hydrology: Pre- & Post-Alamo Dam 1928 – Present Extended Record USGS Flow Values ( Pre - Alamo Dam ) Revised estimates of evaporation losses and general data review Max Release= 7000

    17. HEC-EFM - Vegetation Establishment  2006 Experimental Flow Release  Cottonwood only Cottonwood and Willow Cottonwood, Willow, and Tamarisk No Establishment • EFM: Ecosystem Functions Model • Help determine ecosystem responses to flow regimes of rivers and wetlands 17

    18. Ongoing Science( vegetation, sedimentation, mammal populations, benthics, fish )

    19. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Bill Williams RiverCorridor Steering Committee • Multi-agency collaboration is critical • Partnering brings additional expertise, funding, and political support 5th World Water Forum Istanbul 2009 19

    20. Bill Williams River - Progress……Thus Far • Significant progress in technical & scientific areas necessary to improve water management • The importance of multi-agency collaboration cannot be over-emphasized • Long-term effort that requires future monitoring and adaptation • Partnering brings additional expertise, funding, & political support

    21. Integrated Water Resources Management : Characteristics • Systems Approach: Planning & management at the basin, watershed or transportation system scale. • Integration: Holistic consideration of: • Land & Water • Upstream & Downstream • Innovation: Use of both supply-side & demand-side approaches. • Intersectoral: Collaborative decision-making - integrating both water and land management responsibilities. • Institutional Framework: Multi-jurisdictional, usually spanning planning, policy, regulatory, implementation & operational authorities. • Partnerships: Participatory governance & decision-making processes that are transparent, inclusive, and consensus-based. • Surface & groundwater • Coastal, estuary & riverine

    22. Much is Expected: The Dimensions of IWRM Multi-objective Integration Vertical Integration: coordination & implementation of policies, programs, systems & projects Multidisciplinary: intergovernmentalteams of specialists across relevant disciplines Hydropower Regulatory Programs Flood Risk Mgt. Leadership: Varies by sector & program Horizontal Integration: coordination of sectoral programs across multiple agencies Partnerships: Participatory governance with transparent, inclusive, and consensus-based decision processes

    23. Likely Operating Premise - Water Conflicts Will Persist • Complexity & uncertainly in natural systems an increasingly important consideration (hydrology, ecology, etc.) • Adaptation needed to climate change on system-basis • U.S. Federal discretionary funding shrinking • Globalization will continue, if not accelerate • Water management responsibilities will continue to be shared • Improved intergovernmental cooperation on trans-boundary water issues is essential • Increased public and stakeholder participation in water planning is critical • Public often lacks trust in Government officials & govt “experts”

    24. Technical Tools Understand basic hydrology, ecology, economics, etc Accurately represent the linkages between these scientific areas Process Skills Understand institutional setting Understand sources of any conflict Develop ways to engage Stakeholders Build trust Given this Context – Successful Water Mgt. Requires:

    25. A Continuum of Participation LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION HIGH PARTICIPATORY TECHNIQUE Joint Decision Making Agreeing to the decision Assisted Negotiations Collaboration/Mediation Having an influence upon the decision Facilitation/Interactive Workshops Task Forces/Advisory Groups Being heard before the final decision is made Conferences, symposia Public hearings Being informed about the decision being made Public information LOW Match Techniques to Intended Level of Involvement

    26. A Tool Box – a Range of Dispute Resolution Techniques Unassisted Assisted 3rd Party Decision Making HOT TUB WAR Extent of Conflict B A • Relationship • Building Asst • -------------------------- • Counseling/therapy • Conciliation • Team building • Informal Social • Joint Activities • Procedural • Assistance • --------------- • Coaching- • consultation • Training • Facilitation • Mediation • Advisory • Non-binding • Assistance • --------------- • Non binding • arbitration • Summary Jury • trial • Binding • Assistance • -------------- • Binding • arbitration • Med-Arb • Dispute Panels • (binding) • Private Courts • Judging • Conciliation • Information • exchange • meetings • Cooperative • Collaborative • Problem-solving • Negotiations • Substantive Assistance • ---------------------------- • Mini-trial • Technical advisory boards • Dispute Panels • Advisory Mediation • Fact Finding • Settlement Conference

    27. A Tool Box – a Range of Dispute Resolution Techniques Unassisted Assisted 3rd Party Decision Making HOT TUB WAR Extent of Conflict B A • Relationship • Building Asst • -------------------------- • Counseling/therapy • Conciliation • Team building • Informal Social • Joint Activities • Procedural • Assistance • ----------------- • Coaching- • consultation • Training • Facilitation • Mediation • Advisory • Non-binding • Assistance • --------------- • Non binding • arbitration • Summary Jury • trial • Binding • Assistance • -------------- • Binding • arbitration • Med-Arb • Dispute Panels • (binding) • Private Courts • Judging • Conciliation • Information • exchange • meetings • Cooperative • Collaborative • Problem-solving • Negotiations • Technically • Informed Assistance • ---------------------------- • Computer Assisted Dispute Resolution (CADRe) • Shared Vision Planning • Substantive Assistance • ---------------------------- • Mini-trial • Advisory boards • Dispute Panels • Advisory Mediation • Fact Finding • Settlement Conf

    28. What is Shared Vision Planning ? • Shared Vision Planning (SVP) is a collaborative approach to formulating water management solutions that combines three disparate practices:  • 1) Traditional water resources planning, within a contemporary IWRM context, • 2) Active and open public participation, structured to suit the setting, • 3) Technical transparency thru collaborative computer modeling.  • The desired outcome is technically informed, timely, and hopefully, more robust decisions, with less conflict. • Although each of these elements have long been successfully applied, what makes SVP unique is the integration of traditional planning processes with structured, open public participation & collaborative computer modeling. 

    29. Collaborative Decision-Making & IWRM: Shared Vision Planning Shared Vision Planning • Process of “technically informed" consensus building. • Links IWRM Collaboration directly to civil society and the people • Models are built collaboratively & accessible to all stakeholders. • Public and experts work together to build models and supply data. • Stakeholder concerns are directly incorporated into models. Models are visual and transparent • Particularly useful in trans-boundary and high-conflict cases.

    30. “the process of building a model is a way of working out a shared view of what is being managed and how the managing should be done." K. Lee • SVP builds understanding of the system – • SVP builds confidence in the analysis • SVP builds trust between stakeholders

    31. SVP relies on Structured Collaboration • “Circles of Influence” concept relies on team building. • Concentric circles link representatives with differing levels of personal involvement Circle B – Model Users, Validators Circle C – All Interested Parties Circle D –Decision Makers Circle A – Model Building team

    32. Characteristics of SVP Technical Analysis • Integrated • all issues are in one place • User Friendly • can be used by non-technical parties • Understandable/Transparent • assumptions, input, relationships, & output • Relevant • to the issues important to stakeholders and decision makers • Adaptable/Flexible • to changing conditions or evolving process

    33. Work the SVP Process Both Vertically & Horizontally Tier I: Conceptual Framework Tier II: Integrated Planning / Screening / Negotiating Model Quality Hydrology Ecologic Economic Tier III: Detailed Data Sets and Numerical Models

    34. What is different… ...from other collaborative planning processes? • thefocus on the technical analysis ...from traditional technical analysis? • theparticipation of stakeholdersin developing and validating the analysis

    35. Stakeholder Involvement in Technical Analysis Not Just Theory • Applied across different water issues: • Droughts, TMDLs, Urban Water Mgmt, 404 Water Supply Permitting, Reservoir Operation, Water Allocation • Applied across various advocates/sponsors: • Feds, states, NGOs, private sector • Interagency federal initiative • Corps is mounting a major effort to support collaborative planning

    36. Current SVP Initiatives • Next stage of SVP pilot on U.S. Federal Water supply 404 permitting with Western States Water Council now being funded by several cities in the western U.S.. • Studies sponsored by IJC - Lake Ontario (2001-2006) Upper Great Lakes Study (2006 – present). • Collaborative Modeling on the Willamette River (OR) • State of California, Hawaii, Missouri River ERP. • Partnerships with Various Federal agencies - USIECR, USGS, Sandia National Laboratory & U.S. States • Further conceptual and methodological development, primers, training, research and outreach

    37. A Case Study Example – Lake Ontario Regulation Study • Five year, $25 Million study on re-regulation of Lake Ontario- St. Lawrence River • Co-sponsored by the US and Canada through the International Joint Commission (IJC) • Collaboratively-built models help interest groups identify & begin to quantify the relationships between hydrology and their interests.

    38. Structured Stakeholder Involvement in Model Building A B C D Circle A • Modelers from Corps + Envt Canada + contractors • email, weekly teleconferences Circle B • Working groups on Navigation, Hydropower, M&I water supply, Environment, recreational boating, coastal (lake) erosion • Working groups developed technical information and passed it to the Circle A team Circle C • The most interested members of the public • Technical experts in subsidiary studies • Road Show presentations at stakeholder gatherings Circle D • Practice Decision-Making workshop with US-Canada Study Board

    39. A data visualization tool that links all the models Object-Oriented Model - Stella Linked w/Process Models

    40. Evaluation Using Dynamic Excel Spreadsheet in Workshop Settings Graphic displays like this one on meadow marsh can relate alternatives to “thing people care about”; able to switch alternatives to play “what if” games

    41. Wrap Up – Shared Vision Planning • Connecting collaboration & modeling is proliferating – with top-level Corps backing & a federal initiative • Shared Vision Planning integrates tried-and-true planning principles, systems modeling and collaboration • Openness in the process and the modeling foments trust in both and among stakeholders

    42. 29 October 2008