Actionable knowledge for sustainability at the water-land nexus: An inquiry into governance and social learning in two river basins in Luxembourg

(1)

i PhD-FHSE-2020-35

The Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences

DISSERTATION

Defence held on 03/12/2020 in Esch-sur-Alzette to obtain the degree of

DOCTEUR DE L’UNIVERSITÉ DU LUXEMBOURG

EN SCIENCES SOCIALES

by

Kristina HONDRILA

Born on 22 June 1976 in Esbjerg (Denmark)

ACTIONABLE KNOWLEDGE FOR SUSTAINABILITY AT THE

WATER

-

LAND NEXUS

:

A

N INQUIRY INTO GOVERNANCE AND SOCIAL LEARNING

IN TWO RIVER BASINS IN

L

UXEMBOURG

Dissertation defence committee

Dr Ariane König,dissertation supervisor

Sr Research Scientist, Université du Luxembourg Dr Claudia Pahl-Wostl

Professor, University of Osnabrück Dr Christian Schulz, Chairman Professor, Université du Luxembourg Dr Sebastian Manhart

(2)

ii

Dedication

To my family, especially Alethea

Acknowledgements

This thesis has been an intense journey. It would not have been possible without the generous support of

…my supervisor, Ariane König, who so wholeheartedly embraces critical intellectual inquiry and never

ceased to guide and challenge me,

…the members of my supervisory committee, Christian Schulz and Sebastian Manhart, whose advice

so often pointed me in the right direction (even if I did not always heed it),

…Karl Pickar, Bo Raber, and all other members of the NEXUS FUTURES team who accompanied me

through ups and downs, and bore with me when I again talked too much,

…student assistant Max Mattern who unearthed more documents and data than I was able to

integrate, and whose work on references was invaluable.

There is nothing like being in a team, especially in turbulent times. Don´t even get me started on context…

Furthermore, I thank Claudia Pahl-Wostl and Christian Knieper from the University of Osnabrück for

their precious input.

I also thank all dear colleagues at the university for chats, help, and laughs.

Last but certainly not least, I would like to express my deep gratitude towards the members of the

NEXUS FUTURES reference group and all other actors in Luxembourg who so generously shared

insights, feedback, and documents.

(3)

iii

The thesis offers in-depth empirical insights into diverse factors that foster or hinder collective capacities of actors to address sustainability challenges at the water-land nexus. It focuses on how relations, knowledge, and practices in diverse organisations and professions engaged in governance and social learning processes in the Syr and Upper Sûre river basins in Luxembourg have changed following the entering into force of the EU Water Framework Directive in 2000. Finding that contradictions in water and land systems grow while spaces for self-organisation and meaning-making shrink, the thesis raises fundamental questions concerning both dominant supply- and growth-oriented paradigms and managerial approaches to sustainability. New approaches are needed to embrace interrelations between ecological and social regeneration.

Originality and contributions of the thesis

The thesis takes its point of departure in the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) of 2000. By obliging member states to restore aquatic ecosystems to a ´good ecological status´, it is one of the most ambitious pieces of EU environmental legislation. The thesis examines sustainability challenges at the nexus of water, environment, agriculture and other forms of land use in two river basins in Luxembourg to analyse how the EU WFD has contributed to changing how they are addressed.

Sustainability science and adaptive governance have pointed to several gaps in human-environment interactions. Some scholars diagnose discrepancies between formal environmental objectives and ongoing deterioration of ecosystems. Others focus on gaps between science and action.

(10)

x Thirdly, the thesis develops an analytical grid that enables the characterisation and mapping of different approaches and paradigms in water and land governance. It facilitates the analysis of tensions and synergies by considering what governance modes (top-down/network/bottom-up) and management purposes (anthropocentric/integrated/ecocentric) diverse organisations and policies have pursued. When applied to empirical analysis, the analytical grid is suitable to cast light on how transformative changes in water and land systems, in policies, and organisations may go hand in hand. Finally, the thesis interprets the EU WFD as a hybrid regulatory framework that combines different paradigms. The WFD includes elements from adaptive and integrated water management that promotes social learning as crucial for sustainability transformations. At the same time, the thesis also identifies elements from a “managerial ecological restoration paradigm” that seeks to attain ambitious environmental objectives via hierarchical governance and scientific expertise. Ecocentric managerial approaches to resource governance have received little attention in WFD-related research so far. On this basis, empirical inquiry provides tentative answers to the following research questions:

1. How can a kind of knowledge be conceptualised that fosters collective action for sustainability? 2. How has the EU WFD changed water and land governance and management in Luxembourg? 3. What factors facilitate or hinder the emergence of social learning and actionable knowledge

for sustainability?

Thematic focus and methods

The thesis is located in transformative sustainability science and conducts a comparative case study. The research questions, thematic focus, and results have emerged iteratively from engagement with actors who are professionally engaged in Luxembourg´s water and land systems, from scientific literature, and data generated via diverse qualitative methods.

Thematic focus and structure of the case studies: The thesis rests on a qualitative inquiry into

governance and social learning in two river basins that followed upon the entering into force of the EU WFD. The directive formally obliges EU member states to restore their water bodies to a ´good ecological status´ by 2027 at the latest. The case studies analyse formal and informal governance processes in the Syr and Upper Sûre basins, with a focus on the role of two river basin organisations (the Upper Sûre River Contract and Syr River Partnership) in fostering social learning. The river partnerships bring together governmental actors, municipalities, intermunicipal syndicates, and other local and national actors, including from agriculture. They were founded following the entering into force of the EU WFD and its national transposition.

In the Upper Sûre basin, the case study concerns the preparation of new drinking water protection zones around the Upper Sûre lake (a national drinking water reservoir) that will restrict agricultural and other local activities to improve water quality. The case study analyses interplays between formal regulatory processes preparing the protection zones and efforts of the Upper Sûre River Contract, municipalities, and farmers to be actively involved in the process. Furthermore, it analyses how farmers and the national water supplier SEBES concluded a cooperation (LAKU) that entailed experimentation with new ´water-friendlier´ farming techniques, with support of the Upper Sûre Nature Park and its River Contract.

(11)

xi processes relating to national implementation of the EU WFD, Floods, and Habitats Directives that aim to restore aquatic ecosystems to a good status and enhance flood protection via river restorations and other measures. Furthermore, the case study analyses formal and informal processes that concern the extension of a local wastewater treatment plant. Its capacities have been overstretched by growing quantities of municipal and airport wastewater, resulting in pollution of the Syr river and its protected Natura 2000 areas.

Empirical analysis concentrates on national WFD implementation and activities of the river partnerships in the period from 2000 to 2019. At the same time, the case studies include an extensive analysis of contexts. The case studies are composed of five parts:

• PART I: Historical and contemporary governance contexts

•_{PART II: Governance processes relating to the national implementation of the EU Water} Framework Directive and the creation of the Upper Sûre and Syr river partnerships (2000-2012)

•_{PART III: Governance processes in the Upper Sûre basin relating to the elaboration of new} drinking water protection zones (2012-2019)

• PART IV: Governance processes in the Syr river basin relating to water quality and river restorations (2012-2019)

• PART V: Comparative analysis of governance processes in the two river basins

Adapted from the Management and Transition Framework (see below), the analysis of processes is structured into sequences of eight to 14 so-called áction situations´ that denote specific sub-processes or situations. For each action situation, the case studies examine details as regards governance (modes, phases, and levels), actors involved (social relations and roles), formal and informal institutions (e.g. laws and values), diverse types of knowledge and information, and other ínput´ and óutcome´ factors. The method has been chosen with a view to identifying interplays between formal and informal governance processes.

Transdisciplinary research design, qualitative interviews, and collaborative workshops: The thematic

focus, selection of action situations, and empirical data have emerged from transdisciplinary and qualitative research methods. The thesis has been conducted in the framework of the NEXUS FUTURES project that pioneers transformative sustainability science in Luxembourg. Research has encompassed regular exchanges with members of the NEXUS FUTURES reference group that is composed of representatives of the two river basin organisations, the Ministry of the Environment, the national Water Management Authority (AGE), the national water supplier SEBES and other water syndicates, of an agricultural cooperation, other researchers, and citizens.

Furthermore, the thesis builds on qualitative interviews and informal conversations with roughly 60 actors that have included farmers, farm advisors, and governmental agricultural actors, the national Nature and Forest Agency (ANF), environmental and municipal organisations, and consultants (in addition to the aforementioned actors).

Finally, the author has organised two stakeholder workshops at the Syr and Upper Sûre where participants collaboratively elaborated systems diagrams and action fields for water and land governance and management in the two river basins. Among them were the main topics chosen for the case studies.

Triangulation with diverse data: Qualitative interviews and workshops have been triangulated with

(12)

xii documents included diverse formal policy documents (incl. laws and management plans), organisational documents (such as reports, minutes, etc.), and press articles.

Key concepts and terms

The thesis takes its point of departure in the assumption that tackling sustainability challenges in complex social-ecological systems necessitates profound changes in knowledge and practices. Context-specific approaches are needed that embrace complexity, uncertainty, contingency, and the highly normative character of sustainability. Formal regulation, public funding, and scientific expertise alone are not sufficient. Rather, adaptive governance and transformative sustainability science stress the importance of non-scientific knowledge and social learning. In doing so, scholars build on a broad definition of governance that encompasses both formal processes and informal self-organisation of diverse actors. Furthermore, it builds on a broad definition of water and land governance systems as composed of actors, formal and informal institutions, ecosystems, and infrastructures.

The thesis elaborates on the concept of multiloop social learning from the Management and Transition Framework (MTF, Pahl-Wostl et al., 2010) to analyse the extent and depth of social learning in governance processes. Based on MTF and similar approaches, the thesis defines social learning as entailing changes in social relations, knowledge, and action that enhance collective capacities of actors to address sustainability challenges in their contexts. In contradistinction to single loop learning (“business-as-usual”), double loop learning emerges when actors fundamentally question and revise own roles, knowledge, institutions, and practices. Social networks composed of diverse actors who participate in informal and formal governance are considered particularly conducive to double loop social learning. Triple loop learning denotes paradigm shifts in the entire governance system.

Social learning and knowledge for sustainability entails the idea that actors need to become aware of harmful consequences of their own practices and take actions to adapt and transform them (elaborated from Tabara & Pahl-Wostl, 2007). In adaptive governance, social learning is thus considered key to the capacities of societies to adapt to changes in external environment and, furthermore, to transform patterns in human-environment interactions.

Conceptualisation of actionable knowledge (research question 1): The thesis conceptualises

knowledge as emerging from personal meaning-making and action that is inextricably interrelated with diverse contexts. The thesis draws on American Pragmatism, symbolic interactionism, transformation research, organizational and professional learning theories, and Science and Technology Studies (STS) to conceptualise the following nested contexts (composed of diverse informal, formal, and material factors):

•_{Personal contexts: sphere of meaning-making and personal circumstances;}

• Transactional contexts: “contexts of co-presence” (Giddens, 1984) , including local contexts where actors interact directly with water and land (Wiek & Larson, 2014);

•_{Organisational contexts: environments of formal organisations, professional and local} communities, and social networks;

• Macro contexts: social and cultural spheres of society (incl. EU and national formal governance) and material spheres (incl. bio- and techno-spheres).

(13)

xiii denoting collectivities that share rules, values, and practices that may reflect certain paradigms and be engrained in shared narratives (Argyris & Schön, 1996; Knorr Cetina, 2007; Tsoukas, 2005).

The thesis posits that knowledge that is to be actionable for sustainability for actors needs to both resonate with and challenge established meaning- and action-frames. Furthermore, the analytical framework extends actionable knowledge to encompass the concept of ´narrative identity´. It rests on the assumption that actors will tend to act on the basis of their sense of who they are (Somers, 1994). Members of different organisations may thus hold different narrative identities. Furthermore, the conceptual framework distinguishes between the following overlapping community-based knowledge types:

• Local knowledge: skills and understandings relating to local phenomena that flow from engagement in local communities and contexts;

•_{Professional knowledge: occupation-based skills and understandings institutionalised in} particular professional communities (with scientific knowledge as a sub-type that is warranted by scientific communities);

•_{Organisational knowledge: skills and understandings relating to the functioning of} organisations (e.g. internal decision-making procedures, task distributions, and roles).

In order to identify social learning, the case studies investigates if and how the knowledge and actions of diverse actors undergo changes in the course of governance processes: river basin organisations and other nongovernmental environmental actors, farmers, municipalities, water suppliers, and governmental actors. Furthermore, based on the literature (incl. König, 2018, Hadorn et al., 2008, Grunwald, 2016), the thesis develops an analytical framework to analyse different dimensions of local, professional, and organisational knowledge:

• Normative dimension (why): purposes and framings of challenges; • Systems dimension (what): scopes and factors considered;

•_{Transformation dimension (how): preferred means of social and material engagement (e.g.} governance modes and management interventions).

The thesis conceptualises actionable knowledge as potentially emerging from double loop social learning when actors converge towards common understandings of challenges and on how to address them along these dimensions.

Conceptualisation of changes in water and land governance and management (research question 2):

The thesis draws on the Management and Transition Framework (MTF) and other adaptive and systems approaches to analyse governance and management in complex social-ecological systems (SES). It adopts a broad understanding of governance as encompassing both formal policy and informal governance processes.

The thesis focuses on changes in approaches and paradigms that shape how specific organisations engage in water and land systems. Paradigms may also be formally institutionalised in regulatory frameworks such as the EU WFD. To structure analysis, the thesis develops an analytical grid composed of:

•_{a vertical axis: governance modes,}

(14)

xiv anthropocentric, integrated, and ecocentric purposes attributed to water and land management. On this basis, the thesis investigates several paradigms. The EU Water Framework Directive has been widely interpreted as signalling a paradigm shift away from the incumbent ´command-and-control´ paradigm towards an adaptive and integrated paradigm. ´Command-and-control´ combines top-down governance (i.e. formal regulation based on science) with narrow anthropocentric purposes, namely drinking water supply and flood protection based on technical infrastructures. Pollution is mainly addressed via technological ´fixes´ (such as wastewater treatment).

In contrast, adaptive and integrated paradigms pursue broad anthropocentric purposes aiming for pollution prevention, diverse services delivered by ecosystems to humans, and nature-based ´solutions´ (such as river restorations) that strengthen ecological regeneration capacities. Network governance is the preferred governance mode, with stakeholder involvement and the consideration of non-scientific knowledge types as hallmark. In adaptive governance, the aim of social networks is to bring together diverse nongovernmental and governmental actors in cross-scale and cross-sectoral informal and self-organised processes that are considered to be particularly conducive to social learning and experimental approaches to ecosystem management. Network governance requires flexible regulatory frameworks as key elements in fostering self-organisation.

The thesis devotes an entire part (part 4) to the characterisation of different paradigms identified in the literature. In addition to the above-mentioned, it elaborates on the productionist paradigm in agriculture and on agroecological approaches. Furthermore, it adds two ecocentric paradigms: an “ecocultural community paradigm” and a “managerial ecological restoration paradigm”. The main reason for doing so is that a few scholars have interpreted the EU WFD as an expression of a technocratic approach to environmental protection (e.g. Ollivier, 2004).

Adding these paradigms serves to extend the analytical scope of the inquiry into transformative changes at the water-land nexus in Luxembourg. Notably, it enables the author to investigate not only dominant paradigms, but also other approaches (e.g. of nongovernmental actors). On this basis, the thesis compares water and land governance in the Syr and Upper Sûre river basins before and after the entering into force of the EU WFD.

Conceptualisation of social learning and facilitating and hindering factors (research question 3): The

case studies inquire into factors that have facilitated or hindered the emergence of social learning and actionable knowledge in informal governance processes in the Syr and Upper Sûre river basins. In doing so, the thesis adapts the social learning scheme of the Management and Transition Framework (MTF). It does so by embedding processes in the diverse contexts outlined above (including related informal, formal, and material factors) and by devoting particular attention to (changes in) local, professional, and organisational knowledge. Unlike most of the literature, the scheme developed explicitly considers not only intended outcomes, but also unintended effects.

(15)

xv

Main findings

Changes in water and land governance and management following the entering into force of the EU WFD (research question 2)

Via the national water law of 2008, the EU WFD has contributed to profoundly changing formal purposes, scopes, and preferred means in water governance in Luxembourg by pursuing aquatic ecosystem health in river basins, pollution prevention (incl. via the ´polluter-pays´ principle), and nature-based ´solutions´ to flood protection (e.g. via river restorations). Never before has water governance been based on as extensive scientific studies and data as following the EU WFD. This has contributed to growing awareness of the need to improve aquatic ecosystem health. The introduction of a central Water Management Authority (AGE), of river partnerships, and of formal public participation processes has meant that new additional actors entered water governance. It also signalled the possible emergence of network governance.

Before, in Luxembourg (as elsewhere) water management aimed primarily to secure drinking water supply and mitigate flood risks. It was mainly in the hands of municipalities and intermunicipal water infrastructure operators. Municipalities continue to hold autonomy in urban water management today. In addition, the national water supplier SEBES delivered drinking water from the Upper Sûre dam. At the national level, water competences used to be dispersed among several ministries and administrations. Ecosystem-based management at the scale of river basins did not exist, nor did formal public consultations and stakeholder involvement. Furthermore, the EU WFD led to closer integration of formal water and environmental policies (e.g. of management objectives and plans as regards water bodies and areas protected under the EU Habitats Directive) and increased coordination with agricultural policies (e.g. via new funding schemes for farmers).

However, the case studies also find that national WFD implementation has formally institutionalised top-down managerial approaches to ecological restoration. In Luxembourg, the EU WFD and related policies have reinforced technical framings of water-related challenges based on scientifically- and legally-defined ecological criteria. The EU WFD aims for context-specific water management tailored to specific water body types. However, as the EU WFD itself, national implementation has neglected social contexts, criteria, and processes. As a result, formal governance has focused on water quality alone. In the case studies, technical framings have also extended to formal public consultations. Furthermore, most action situations analysed concerned the elaboration of plans and measures, rather than implementation.

In addition, having maintained their autonomy, national WFD implementation continues to depend strongly on municipalities (with state co-funding). There have been no obligations and few incentives for municipalities to cooperate across municipal borders at the scale of river basins. National WFD implementation thus added an additional scale to water management, but without attaching clear functions to it. Municipalities have tended to pursue bottom-up approaches that typically prioritise social infrastructures (e.g. housing, childcare facilities, cultural offers), transport and water infrastructures (concerning drinking water supply and wastewater treatment) rather than ecological restoration projects. Often, however, restoration projects are elements of broader local development projects.

(16)

xvi Furthermore, the case studies also suggest that agriculture continues to be centred on conventional food production for world markets (i.e. a productionist paradigm). However, there are some signs of growing recognition of environmental concerns (reflected in public funding schemes). At the same time, only 5 % of farms have ´gone organic´. Farmers explain this by reference to a lack of demand among consumers in Luxembourg for (more pricey) domestic organic products.

On this basis, the case studies find that the EU WFD has contributed to increasing paradigmatic hybridity and contradictions in Luxembourg´s water and land systems. Material improvements in the state of aquatic ecosystems have remained modest. By 2015, only three water bodies had reached a “good ecological status”. It is not expected that WFD objectives can be reached by 2027. The third draft national WFD management plan for the period 2021-2027 adds climate change, low levels of water in water bodies, and demographic and economic development to the list of main obstacles to reaching objectives (AGE, 2018d).

Therefore, overall, the case studies have found few signs of wider paradigm shifts in Luxembourg´s water and land systems (i.e. triple loop social learning). Water and land governance and management have formally become more integrated, but there continues to be a large gap between formal objectives and the state of ecosystems. Regulatory frameworks such as the EU WFD are only one factor in a much larger system in need of transformative change.

Facilitating and hindering factors for social learning in the Syr and Upper Sûre river basins (research question 3)

The case studies offer insights into informal, formal, and material factors that can facilitate or hinder social learning and the emergence of actionable knowledge among actors engaged in water and land governance. The Syr and Upper Sûre river basins have been defined based on hydrological and administrative WFD criteria. Starting as Interreg projects that preceded national WFD transposition, the Upper Sûre River Contract and Syr River Partnership have initiated self-organised processes that have contributed to making river basins contexts of social and material interaction between diverse actors. Today, there are more social relations and activities that aim for integrated water management at the scale of river basins than before.

At the same time, the case studies find that network effects in the processes analysed have not reached out equally across sectors and scales. The emerging social network in the Syr valley has centred on local and national actors committed to environmental objectives, hardly including farmers and other agricultural actors. Only few measures to improve aquatic ecosystem health have been carried out across municipal borders. Despite efforts of the Syr River Partnership and its members, the network did not obtain responses concerning one of the major causes of pollution of the Syr river, notably, airport wastewater. In the Upper Sûre case, more notable social network and learning effects were identified. Facilitated by the Upper Sûre River Contract, they consisted in a new cooperation between farmers and the national water supplier SEBES (LAKU) that launched experiments for more ´water-friendly´ farming. Social learning, however, did not extend to the exploration of new farming models. Whilst the Ministry of the Environment and the Water Management Authority (AGE) supported the cooperation, relations between local and governmental actors have remained tense. Stakeholder involvement in the elaboration of new drinking water protection zones around the Upper Sûre lake have remained limited to the revision of technical details in the course of the formal public consultation and related meetings held on the upcoming draft regulation.

(17)

xvii While processes in the Upper Sûre region all concerned the new future drinking water protection zones, processes in the Syr basin have been characterised by fragmentation as a result of weak coordination and the absence of overarching processes.

Overall, the case studies identify some signs of social learning, but they have mainly been limited to single loop social learning. The following summarises the main hindering and facilitating factors.

Organisational context factors: The case studies provide substantial evidence that organisational

factors are crucial in facilitating and hindering social learning in governance processes. The case studies ascribe the respective challenges that the Syr River Partnership and the Upper Sûre River Contract have met in expanding social networks to different organizational structures and relations in the river basins that reflect different histories.

In 2012, the Syr River Partnership and Upper Sûre River Contract were formally set up by their parent organisations, municipalities, and the Ministry of the Interior, based on the national water law that transposed the EU WFD. The river partnerships are financed 50/50 by the government and participating municipalities. In 2013, the Ministry of Sustainable Development took over water competences from the Ministry of the Interior. The overarching aim of the river partnerships has been to associate diverse actors in the river basins to integrated water management, thereby potentially assuming the role of boundary organisation in the creation of social networks. Without legal personality and limited own resources, the river partnerships have remained part of their parent organisations, the Upper Sûre Nature Park and, respectively, the environmental NGO natur&ëmwelt Fondation Hëllef fir d´Natur (HfN).

As part of the Nature Park, the Upper Sûre River Contract has been located at the organisational backbone of a region that has had a decades-long tradition of cooperation between municipalities, farmers, and farm advisors, other agricultural actors, and the environmental staff employed by the Nature Park. The Upper Sûre Nature Park is founded on the cooperation between municipalities and ministries. Its creation, however, followed upon the mobilization of municipalities, farmers, and other local actors against diverse plans that consecutive governments had prepared for the region since the 1950s to protect the national drinking water reservoir. In the “pioneering times” of the 1980s and 1990s, local strives for more self-determination resulted in a host of projects that sought to integrate regional development and agriculture with water and environmental protection (incl. via regional products). In this sense, the Upper Sûre region is an example of a community-based “bioregion” that is largely congruent with a hydrologically defined area (McGinnis, 1999). In 2012, the Upper Sûre River Contract assumed an informal mandate to coordinate stakeholder involvement in the elaboration of the new drinking water protection zones to “give the region a voice”. Thereby, it partly inscribed itself in narratives of local actors “defending” regional against national interests. The River Contract could also build on existing social networks of the Nature Park. Regional cooperation, however, had not extended to the nearby national water supplier SEBES. Local actors have perceived the water suppliers as mainly serving the interests of Luxembourg City and the Southern municipalities. SEBES was in charge of the dossier that provided the basis for the elaboration of the protection zones law.

(18)

xviii environmental NGO that has roots going back to 19th_{century environmentalist organisations. The} environmental NGO has been active in purchasing land to restore wetland habitats in the Syr valley and across the Grand-Duchy to “help nature”. Volunteers and staff have carried out environmental protection activities, sometimes facing opposition from local farmers. Its administrative seat is located outside the river basin. In the processes analysed, the emerging social network of the Syr River Partnership has been composed of committed individual actors; however, organisational municipal commitments to the cooperation have been weaker. At the same time, the Syr River Partnership has had better working relations with the Water Management Authority (AGE) and the Ministry of Sustainable Development than the Upper Sûre River Contract.

The case studies find that different contexts and narratives have been crucial factors in the governance processes analysed, notably by shaping mutual perceptions and the quality of relations. They offer part of the explanation for why network effects in the Upper Sûre region have included actors from diverse sectors, while cross-scale effects have remained limited. In the Syr basin, cross-scale network effects have been stronger, while cross-sectoral effects within the region have been more limited. The differences thus point to strengths and weaknesses of ecosystem-based, respectively, community-based forms of bioregionalism and illuminate some of the challenges that different river basin organisations may face as boundary organisations.

Finally, the histories of the public administrations for water (AGE), nature (ANF), and agriculture (ASTA) themselves have been found to be highly relevant to better understand some of the contemporary coordination challenges. They can partly be ascribed to tense inter-organisational relations that have grown historically. Often, tensions seemed to have had origins in events or developments from years or decades ago. When AGE was created in 2004 within the Ministry of the Interior, it took over competences for aquatic ecosystems previously held by the ANF that had been in charge of forestry, hunting and fisheries since 1840 and of environmental protection measures since 1965. The ANF has pioneered the first river restorations in Luxembourg (including in the Syr valley), which is reflected in “environmentalist narratives” of ANF administrators. After AGE had been created, ANF stayed in charge of ecosystems (under the Ministry for Sustainable Development). AGE built on the technical water management unit of the Ministry of the Interior that was mainly composed of engineers. Hence, the two administrations until 2013 belonged to different ministries, with competences overlapping, and AGE staff initially less experienced in aquatic ecosystem management. AGE also took over competences in river regulations held by ASTA since 1883, because river regulations and agriculture had been closely interrelated.

River restorations usually require the cooperation of the three administrations. Narratives that are passed on to colleagues offer one potential explanation for why some interorganisational relations have hardly changed even when individual actors changed.

Formal process factors: The entering into force of the EU WFD was received with enthusiasm among

environmentalists in Luxembourg who expected to be more actively involved in water management. This was the main reason for why the parent organisations of the river partnerships launched their Interreg projects. National implementation of EU water and environmental legislation has contributed to more funding opportunities for nongovernmental actors in Luxembourg. However, it has also resulted in more regulation and a greater emphasis on scientific expertise. This has been identified as a hindering factor for self-organisation and social learning in the river basins. The thesis suggests that regulation and requirements have contributed to increasing gaps between formal objectives and actions ´on the ground´ in a number of ways.

(19)

xix administrative burdens on governmental and nongovernmental actors, made procedures lengthier, and led to coordination challenges. When asked about the most notable changes in the past twenty years, all actors interviewed referred to increasing regulative requirements and administrative burdens, many of them feeling severely stretched. Examples studied include the national WFD management plans, the dossier preparing new drinking water protection zones (Upper Sûre), a concept on aquatic habitat connectivity (Syr), and feasibility studies for river restorations (Syr). The two latter suggest that river restoration projects face increasing requirements before being granted authorisations and public funding. Science-based requirements have served to ensure the ecological effectiveness of restrictions and measures in improving ecosystem health. In the processes analysed, however, they have also significantly slowed down projects in reaching the point of implementation. What has further added to lengthy procedures was that the administrations for water (AGE) and nature (ANF) have had difficulties in reconciling their interpretations of WFD, respectively, Natura 2000 provisions on aquatic ecosystem restoration. Intricate requirements and criteria are the reason that nongovernmental actors are encouraged to plan their projects with specialized consultancies. Not all consultants, however, have yet become competent in applying all requirements. Authorisation and funding procedures for projects hardly take into account local or professional knowledge or social criteria. These factors have reduced spaces for experimentation.

Secondly, technical framings and procedures have also been applied to the participation of nongovernmental actors in water management in general, and in public consultation procedures in particular. River partnerships, municipalities, and other nongovernmental actors have been expected to primarily contribute to implementing pre-defined measures of the national WFD (and Natura 2000) management plans. Some actors have felt that pressure to fulfil environmental targets was passed ´down´ to them. The case studies suggest that actors are increasingly evaluated - and evaluate themselves - based on numbers and ´box-ticking´.

Formal public consultations have tended to serve the revision of technical details of management plans and laws, rarely opening processes for wider dialogues that would open spaces for reframing. Many actors who submitted contributions did so based on studies and assessments of consultants and agricultural advisors. On the basis of the above, the case studies find that ´expert systems´ have further expanded and consolidated far beyond formal governance. Among governmental actors, there is a widespread belief in the superiority of scientific expertise, with few holding that local and professional knowledge could improve the quality of laws, plans, and assessments. Many local and environmental actors do not share this view.

Finally, the Syr case suggests that the “polluter-pays” principle and legal and administrative requirements are not consistently applied to major polluters. For reasons of “overriding public interest”, the airport has been allowed to overcharge an intermunicipal wastewater treatment plant with wastewater containing deicing substances for decades, with un- or insufficiently treated airport and domestic wastewater having regularly polluted the Syr river during winter months as a result. The Syr River Partnership and its member municipalities have not received a response to their complaints and requests for access to data on the extent of the pollution. The Syr case study identifies the problem as one of the few concerns that municipalities and the river partnership share.

(20)

xx

Informal process factors: The processes analysed offer insights into various hindering factors for

dialogues and the emergence of common understandings among diverse actors. The deepest divide has been identified between environmental and agricultural actors, both nongovernmental and governmental. The analysis of divergent narratives and imaginaries of landscapes (wetlands, in particular) contributes to cast light on this divide. While environmentalists have striven to restore traditional cultural “mosaic landscapes” regretting the loss of pre-industrial wetlands and biodiversity, many farmers and agricultural actors tend to regard pre-industrial agriculture as “primitive”, to associate it with hunger and “unhealthy” wetlands that can spread water-borne diseases. In the view of many farmers, environmentalists cling to idealised images of extensive “Heidi agriculture” unsuitable for modern production, while many environmentalists have the impression that conventional farmers simply “do not want to change”.

In the Upper Sûre region, these divides surfaced in discussions about future restrictions on agriculture in the area that resulted in significant tensions between local farmers and the Ministry of Sustainable Development. A mutual lack of trust has also been identified as a possible reason for why farmers and other local actors were not involved more actively in the elaboration of the future protection zones. Tensions were aggravated by two factors: a pesticides accident that contaminated the Upper Sûre lake (that was followed by pesticide findings in emergency groundwater wells) and national elections. The pesticides accident confirms the significance many scholars attribute to hazard events. In the case of the Upper Sûre, the threat to national water security moved the debates about conventional agriculture into public and political arenas rendering relations even more difficult. Furthermore, years later, the drinking water protection zones became objects of national elections campaigns, marked by conflicts between local conservative deputies and mayors and the Green Party heading the Ministry of Sustainable Development. Due to polarised relations, the Upper Sûre River Contract (perceived as ´on the side´ of conventional farmers and conservative mayors) was unable to act as boundary organisation. The present thesis thus contributes with evidence on how political factors can hinder the emergence of cross-scale networks and social learning.

In the Syr basin, the analysis of a river restoration project of 2003 (that was followed by an extensive pasture project) and of a public consultation that preceded the declaration of a Natura 2000 area as national wetland reserve also casts light on divides between environmental and agricultural actors. The case study points to divergent narratives and concerns relating to wetlands as a hindering factor in bringing environmentalists and agricultural actors together in the management of restored areas. At the same time, the case studies also identify a number of factors that can facilitate the emergence of social networks and social learning. The examples of the founding periods of the river partnerships and of LAKU suggest that few factors may be as effective in fostering social learning and knowledge-for-action as ´knowledge-in-action´. In these examples, a sense of shared purpose and trust emerged among actors from action-oriented and experimental social processes driven by committed self-organising individuals.

(21)

xxi experiments, in particular, contributed to building trust between the partners and enabled them to develop their professional knowledge in a manner that brought together social and sensory experiences, inspiration derived from best-practice examples from abroad, and scientific water quality and soil data. On this basis, participating farmers and farm advisors developed new technologies and farming practices that aimed to reduce soil erosion, nitrate wash-outs and pesticide use in a manner adapted to their local social and material contexts (incl. soil and landscape conditions). The experiments have been knowledge- and technology-intensive necessitating significant professional and organizational learning. Individuals with a high level of personal commitment drove the cooperation.

The case studies point out that LAKU experiments entailed significantly fewer administrative requirements compared with river restorations and other measures along rivers. Some of the techniques developed by LAKU have begun to be rolled out across the Grand Duchy. At the same time, experimentation with innovative farming techniques primarily served single loop learning. The main objective of participating farmers was to be able to maintain their business models after the entering into force of the new drinking water protection zones and related restrictions.

As regards social relations, roles, and narratives, however, the case study also identifies some signs of double loop professional and organisational learning. The most notable changes identified were the open acknowledgement and discussions of harmful environmental consequences of agriculture among farmers and their efforts to reduce them. They were accompanied by slight changes in narratives that suggested that farmers, after all, did not only produce food, but also contributed to “drinking water production”. The case study interprets this as a possible first sign of an expanded productionist paradigm among farmers. Moreover, SEBES extended its role as technical infrastructure operator to encompass cooperation with local actors to reduce water pollution at source. This may be a sign of changes in technical water management towards more adaptive approaches that include social engagement and pollution prevention. The latter is supported by the fact that SEBES will coordinate the elaboration and implementation of voluntary measures in the future drinking water protection zones among farmers, municipalities, and other actors.

Another insight based on the above-mentioned examples confirms the widely established view that the personal commitment of leading individuals is crucial to self-organised processes. Adding a narrative perspective, the thesis investigates how personal commitment has been related to narrative identities. A strong sense of purpose and self-efficacy drove actors to take “fate in own hands”, based on the belief that it is possible “to change things for the better”. Finally, the case studies also confirm the argument that the personal commitment of pioneering individuals can be a first step towards new and stronger organisational commitments and interorganisational relations.

Material factors: The case studies point to several material factors that hinder social learning and

(22)

xxii Competition for land between diverse actors has intensified, with farmers increasingly unable to keep up with price hikes. Finally, changing weather patterns attributed to climate change (incl. longer drought periods) add to pressures on water bodies (e.g. sinking water levels) and agriculture.

These developments are hindering factors for self-organisation and adaptive water and land management, as access to (affordable) land is a precondition for river restorations and agricultural extensification. The Syr case study suggests that land availability is one of the most significant material factors hindering river restoration projects. Furthermore, less freshwater in rivers increases the proportions of effluents and thereby reduces the potential impact of restorations and other measures on water quality. As regards the Upper Sûre basin, the case study suggests that diverse pressures on farmers have added to perceived shrinking ´rooms for manoeuvre´, despite generous public funding schemes.

Based on the above, the thesis concludes that diverse contradictions in water and land systems grow while spaces for self-organisation and meaning-making shrink.

Concluding insights on actionable knowledge for sustainability (research question 1)

The case studies provide substantial evidence in support of the assumption that what actors perceive as meaningful - and, hence, actionable - is closely related to personal and shared narrative identities. Changes in narratives can be important indicators of the depth of social learning. The case studies compare narratives of different actors who have been particularly actively involved in governance processes: environmentalists, farmers, and municipal officials. In each of these communities, actors hold different landscape imaginaries. Imaginaries contribute to shaping what actors consider desirable in water and land management, but they also contribute to conflicts (e.g. “diverse mosaic landscapes”, “grassland for modern food production”, “recreational green spaces”). The conclusions propose that an exploration of diverse ´ecocultural landscape imaginaries´ could serve as a point starting-point to stimulate new dialogic spaces and processes between these – and other – actors.

Actor engagement in informal governance processes crucially depends on spaces for self-organisation and meaning-making. Despite significant differences in the narratives of actors who have engaged actively in social networks, the thesis also identifies a number of similar elements:

• a strong identification with and care for specific environments and activities (e.g. a sense of vocation, place and/or nature attachment),

•_{a sense of self-efficacy and desire for self-determination,} •_{a drive towards ´getting things done´ in a self-organised manner.}

(23)

xxiii

Abbreviations

ASTA Administration of Technical Agricultural Services

Administration des services techniques de l'agriculture (ex-´Service agricole´) AGE Water Management Authority

Administration de la gestion de l'eau ANF Nature and Forest Agency

Administration de la nature et des forêts (ex-´Administration des eaux et forêts´) CAP Common Agricultural Policy

CRHS Upper Sûre River Contract

Contrat de Rivière Haute-Sûre / Gewässervertrag Obersauer DEA Distribution d’Eau des Ardennes

(inter-municipal syndicate that supplies Northern Luxembourg with drinking water)

EU European Union

LAKU Landwirtschaftlech Kooperatioun Uewersauer (Upper Sûre agricultural cooperation)

LNVL Luxembourg Nature and Birds Protection League Lëtzebuerger Natur- a Vulleschutzliga

MAVDR Ministry of Agriculture, Viticulture and Rural Development

Ministère de l'Agriculture, de la Viticulture et du Développement rural MDDI Ministry of Sustainable Development and Infrastructure

Ministère du développement durable et des infrastructures

MECDD Ministry of the Environment, Climate and Sustainable Development Ministère de l'Environnement, du Climat et du Développement durable n&ë natur&ëmwelt

(environmental NGO)

ONR National Land Consolidation Office Office national de remembrement P&Ch National Roads Administration

Administration des ponts et chaussées PNHS Upper Sûre Nature Park

Parc naturel de la Haute-Sûre / Naturpark Öewersauer SEBES Syndicat des eaux du barrage d'Esch-sur-Sûre

(syndicate supplying Luxembourg with drinking water from the Upper Sûre dam) SER Rural Economy Department

Service d´économie rurale

SIAS Syndicat intercommunal à vocation multiple

(multi-purpose inter-municipal syndicate in the Syr basin)

SIDEST Syndicat intercommunal de dépollution des eaux résiduaires de l'Est

(inter-municipal syndicate for wastewater treatment in Eastern Luxembourg) SNL Luxembourg Naturalist Society

Société des naturalistes luxembourgeois

STATEC National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies

(24)

1

1 INTRODUCTION

“Action is, in fact, the one miracle-working faculty of man…“ (Arendt, 1998)

Water is one of the most significant sustainability challenges the world faces today affecting both humans and ecosystems (Pahl-Wostl, 2015; Vörösmarty et al., 2010). It is a resource shared by all humankind (Ostrom et al., 2002).

Sustainability requires profound transformations across diverse contexts of human social and material engagement. Since the 1990s, calls for paradigm shifts in water and land governance and resource management have grown stronger (Cortner & Moote, 1994; Gleick, 2000; Patterson & Williams, 1998; Röling & Wagemakers, 1998; Thompson, 1994). They have been accompanied by an emphasis on the need for social learning and knowledge conducive to action that contributes to fundamentally changing human-environment interaction (Berkes & Folke, 2002; Dietz et al., 2003; Holling et al., 2002; König, 2018). Relying on governments and scientific information and data alone is not sufficient (Evans, 2012; Kates et al., 2001; König, 2018; Ostrom et al., 2002; van Kerkhoff & Lebel, 2006). Nongovernmental actors and human agency are key in governance systems and their transformation (Pahl-Wostl, 2015; Wiek & Larson, 2012).

Water and land are embedded in complex social-ecological systems dynamics (Binder et al., 2013; Pahl-Wostl, 2015). Therefore, sustainability challenges require the overcoming of silo-thinking. There is a growing recognition of the need to go beyond mono-disciplinary and mono-sectoral perspectives. For example, inter-governmental bodies and researchers have begun to promote a nexus perspective on water, energy, and food (BMU, 2011; Hoff, 2001; König, 2018; Pahl-Wostl, 2015; Stirling, 2015c). Nexus thinking could be a “game-changer” in supporting a new way of framing cross-sectoral problems (Pahl-Wostl, 2015). Sustainability challenges are inherently complex and entail highly normative choices (König, 2018; Pahl-Wostl, 2015; Stirling, 2015c). For this reason, transdisciplinary and transformative approaches in sustainability science engage directly with society to contribute to building capacities for collective action that takes into account complexity, uncertainty and normative ambiguity (König, 2018; Ravetz, 2018), while also engendering “empowering hopes” (Stirling, 2015c).

The thesis adopts a nexus perspective that investigates governance and social learning processes in coupled water and land systems, with a focus on the Syr and Upper Sûre valleys. They are conceptualised as encompassing diverse actors, ecosystems, infrastructures and markets, regulatory frameworks, social norms and cultures (Pahl-Wostl, 2015; Wiek & Larson, 2012). The thesis examines sustainability challenges relating to the chemical quality of surface water bodies and the health of aquatic ecosystems in relation to agriculture and other forms of anthropogenic pressures exerted by economic and demographic developments. The focus on land systems reflects a perspective that goes beyond the anthropocentric focus on food production, recognises diverse agricultural services (Dendoncker & Crouzat, 2018), and takes into account other forms of land use.

(25)

2

1.1 Research questions and contributions

Research question 1: How can a kind of knowledge be conceptualised that fosters collective action for

sustainability?

Transformative sustainability science aims to leverage the marvellous capacities of humans to know and do things differently, actively contributing to shaping the future (König, 2018). During the past decades, transformative sustainability science has developed a broad range of methods and design criteria to facilitate collaborative processes to foster knowledge among multiple stakeholders that helps them address sustainability challenges, thereby seeking to counteract a widening gap between scientific knowledge production and society/practice (König, 2018; Lang et al., 2012; Schneidewind et al., 2016). They have been accompanied by an emphasis on the importance of local, experiential and practice-based knowledge, and context-specific approaches (Berkes & Folke, 2002; Fazey et al., 2006; Raymond et al., 2010; Weber et al., 2014).

Empirical inquiry in adaptive governance and management has pointed to the importance of self-organisation and information in local communities and/or river basins in common-pool resource management (Meijerink & Huitema, 2017; Ostrom, 2009). Furthermore, transformative science has inquired into the importance of meaning-making and experiential social and material engagement in what makes actors depart from established routines and explore new paths in the pursuit of sustainability (König, 2018; Singleton, 2015; Van Poeck et al., 2018). These communities conceptualise knowledge and action as part of ongoing social learning processes in how actors understand and seek to address challenges.