Public participation in the design of local strategies for flood mitigation and control

(1)

INTERNATIONAL HYDROLOGICAL PROGRAMME

/--

@ /

Public participation in the design of local strategies for flood

mitigation and control

bY

B. Affeltranger

IHP-V Themes 4 and 7

IHP-V ) Technical Documents in Hydrology ) No. 48 UNESCO, Paris, 2001

(2)

The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout the publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNESCO concerning the legal

status of any country, territory, city or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

(3)

Preface

UNESCO, in 1965, began the first world-wide programme of studies of the hydrological cycle, the International Hydrological Decade (IHD). Conscious of the need to expand upon the efforts initiated during this period, UNESCO, in 1975, launched the International Hydrological Programme (IHP). The production of this Technical Report was undertaken within the framework of the Fifth Phase of IHP (1996-2001), addressing issues of public participation in flood management pertinent to Theme 4: Strategies for water resources management in emergency and conflicting situations and to Theme 7: Integrated urban water management. This report is also presented as a UNESCO contribution to the follow-up activities of the United Nations International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (1990- 2000).

In accordance to the terms of reference agreed with the Secretariat of the IHP, it is the purpose of this document to provide guidelines on public participation and community involvement to water professionals and planners responsible for the formulation of integrated flood control policies and for their implementation.

There are several reasons advocating for more community-based strategies for flood mitigation and management: a) the complex “social amplification” of disasters, b) the need for improved local response capacity to disasters and emergencies, as well as c) the difficulties encountered when designing and implementing public policies at the State and municipality levels directed to flood mitigation/management, and to vulnerability reduction.

The involvement of the general public in water-related decision-making processes, especially with view to implementing integrated water management, no longer is a new concept, and is being practised today in many countries, especially in the Wesr. Yet, the difficult and complex involvement of stakeholders in decision-making processes addressing to flood control policies and planning, especially at local level, has not be fully appreciated everywhere by water experts and practitioners.

What are the consequences of such community-based mitigation and preparedness strategies in terms of social and political science ? In other words, to what extent can there political tools dedicated to public involvement in decision-making processes be applied to flood-related decisions ? In the last decades, there have been important results achieved in both research and action in the field of public participation in water management (PPWM), an illustration of which could be found in the rich exchanges and proceedings of the Budapest conference on PPWM (a satellite conference to the World Conference on Science), that took place in June 1999.

(4)

Since flood control policies cannot be separated from more general, integrated, water management and planning, we will open this document with a presentation of recent research and action results in PPWM. Such achievements indeed form a critical basis for any water- related expert, practitioner, decision maker, researcher, or representative of the civil society, considering to involve the general public and stakeholders in decision-making processes related to flood control.

Hence, this document seeks to: a) present the reasons for advocating a stronger involvement of the general public in flood-related decision-making processes, b) discuss the conditions making such an involvement feasible in practice, and c) illustrate with case studies the different aspects of public participation in the design of local strategies for flood mitigation and management.

The draft manuscript was reviewed by Dr. Janos Bogardi and Dr. J. Albert0 Tejada- Guibert, of the Division for Water Sciences of UNESCO. I appreciate very much all the comments and amendments that were suggested. I also wish to thank all persons and organisations, within the United Nations systems and elsewhere, contacted during the preparation of this report for having provided much valuable information and sound advice.

Bastien Affeltranger

(5)

Executive summary

The design and the implementation of disaster mitigation strategies at local level is a complex task for appointed or elected authorities, for they have to cope with a high diversity of stakeholders. These stakeholders indeed show different perceptions and relationships to natural hazards, and reflect different socio-economic and socio-psychological backgrounds.

This diversity and complexity also very often characterise urban areas indeed, where socio- economic and cultural heterogeneity may be even more tangible than in rural areas.

Implementing public participation in disaster mitigation decision-making processes may thus help local authorities to develop mitigation strategies that will both fit into the local context and answer the social expectations of differing population subgroups as regards disaster mitigation.

Thus the level of capacity-building may also be improved, as well as the response capacity of communities confronting natural disasters. Public participation is a unique opportunity for authorities to assess the social feasibility of a local strategy for water-related disaster mitigation and management. Public participation in flood mitigation design therefore emerges as powerful tool for more integrated disaster mitigation and urban water management. Still, the institutional set-up needs to be appropriate, local authorities should be prepared and trained, and so should be the representatives of the civil society, including private companies, non governmental organisations (NGOs), and the mass media. Preparing the (local) civil society and communities as a whole to both design and implement water- related participatory processes, shall therefore help identify more clearly responsibilities regarding disasters, and increase the efficiency of mitigation and response strategies and actions.

Still, building up at the local level a consensus on flood mitigation measures, requires a new behaviour from all stakeholders, including granting mutual legitimacy and recognition, as well as a strong capacity of dialogue, and the management of decision-making and action- taking powers and processes. Who are the stakeholders to be taken into account when designing local strategies for flood mitigation ? What can be the added-value of public participation as regards flood mitigation in urban areas ? What conditions must be set up to achieve public participation to the design of flood mitigation strategies ? What are the knowledge and skills needed at local level to implement public participation ? To what extent and how can local authorities be trained in this view ? These are some questions to which this report will attempt to propose elements of answers, which answers may also be different in developed and in developing countries.

(6)

Regarding the issue of public participation to water-related disaster mitigation and management, this report identifies: i) what is at present the state-of-the-art in this field, ii) what operational tools already exist, and where (and with what comparative applicability and efficiency), and iii) what are the implementation modalities of these tools. Case studies are expected to illustrate the theoretical issues addressed. Sections of this report will also focus on developing countries, as well as on urban areas and cultural heritage at risk. In other words, we assume that public participation and participatory processes may not be implemented the same way in different socio-economic and socio-cultural contexts, thus requesting different design and implementation modalities.

This report produces several conclusions on participatory processes in water management at large, and in flood mitigation and management in particular. First, there are several categories of professional and non-professional participants likely to be involved in water management and in the mitigation of water-related disasters:

a) Professionals of whom water management is a permanent, full-time employment, b) Professionals who occasionally take part in the various phases of water management, c) Planners and policy analysts whose area of work covers various aspects of water management,

d) Managers whose responsibility includes water resources management in addition to other resources,

e) Policy-makers and decision-makers,

f) Non-professionals involved in the implementation and operation of water resources projects, including NGOs,

g) Laypersons occasionally taking part to the decisions, and representing the users of the water resources, communities affected by water-related disasters and projects, and other interest groups and stakeholders,

h) Public and private companies, and the media, with assets or interests in flood-prone areas.

Second, public participation is an essential added-value to the decision-making process of mitigation-related issues because it enables authorities to analyse the local context and civic environment, and thus design context-oriented or community-based mitigation strategies. Such bottom-up approach also appears as a guarantee for official flood-related decisions and activities to be better appropriated by the community, and benefit from increased public support for implementation.

Yet, public participation alone does not make the decision in and by itself; in other words, participatory processes should be clearly designed and conducted by democratically chosen authorities, with the support of water professionals. Appropriate time, space and methodological, as well as practical, steps of participatory processes do indeed condition their success. Authorities in charge of participatory flood mitigation initiatives should therefore develop endogenous feedback methods and tools to assess for the quality of public participation.

Information about floods is not lacking. On the contrary, it is abundant. Yet, there is often a communication gap between the environmental sciences and the social and human sciences. The International Hydrological Programme (IHP) aims to Ii11 this gap by providing suggestions for integrated water management strategies, and this technical report is meant to serve this objective.

(7)

Successful public participation in flood-related issues should actually combine (often differing) value judgements (from stakeholders) and technical information in a structured framework involving workable decision tasks. The objective of groups representing community members, NGOs or the civil society, should then be to provide better informed recommendations to decision-makers in charge of flood control. Authorities responsible for the design and monitoring of participatory processes should therefore seek that non-expert community members be provided with reliable, quality information on issues related to flood control.

According to literature and practice, four criteria may be appropriate to assess for the success of flood-related public participation initiatives:

a) The achievement of a consensus agreement.

The political objective of participatory processes is not to resolve a dispute (or seldom), but rather to provide decision-makers with an insight on the decision’s potential impact on affected communities, and to identify the expectations of these communities;

b) The way the steps of the nrocess were addressed.

These ways should be understandable to all participants and involved stakeholders, and addressing their key factual questions. Decision quality requests both an appropriate decision framework, as well as appropriate information provided to the right people and groups. The selection of the decision framework therefore is a critical step;

c) In the nature of the alternative recommended bv the urocess.

This alternative should be highly effective in meeting all the objectives initially or progressively established for the decision by individuals and groups taking part to the participation process.

d) There should eventually be conducted an assessment of the participation campaign “costs and benefits” (both monetary and non monetary, tangible and non tangible). This assessment should be made nublic.

(8)

General introduction

I - Floods: facts and figures

Though floods are the most common natural disaster and cause the greatest number of deaths and the most damage, the danger that they present is often underestimated (Miller, 1997).

According to the German reinsurance company Munich Re for the period 1986-1995, floods account for 32% of all disasters, 31% of economic losses, 55% of deaths, but only 8%

of insured losses world-wide. The United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs (DHA) states that floods represented 38.7% of disasters occurred in 1996, world-wide. In the period 1987-1996, Asia faced 44% of total flood number, whereas Americas accounted for 27% and Africa for 13%. In the same period of time, flood damage in Asia represents 54% of total damage due to floods world-wide, of which Americas account for 9%. Though Europe faced “only” 10% of total floods during 1987-1996, this region accounts for 35% of flood damage. This ratio can be explained by the difference, in terms of concentration of wealth and economic assets, existing between Europe and less developed countries. Regarding the toll of deaths due to floods, differences are striking. Asia represents 92% of all death for 1987-l 996, whereas the Americas account for 3.5%, Africa 2.5% and Europe 1.80%.

Briefly explained, flooding arises from a number of different causes. River flooding results from long periods of heavy rain or the melting of snow over large areas; such floods, such as the 1993 flood on the Mississippi, may last for several months. On the other hand flash floods are caused by short intense storms (typically thunderstorms, often present in arid areas and in the mountains) over a small, reactive, river basin, producing a flood that rises rapidly to a relatively high peak. Though such floods affect only a limited area, the damage can be severe because of the high flow and sudden onset. E,ffects of flooding in urban areas may also be increased and worsened because of inadequate or even non existent urban drainage and sewerage systems. A storm surge is a coastal or estuary flood produced by the passage of a low pressure centre accompanied by high winds, causing the sea to invade the land. Much of the damage from a tropical cyclone, hurricane or typhoon often is due to the storm surge that it causes. Often the weather system that causes the surge will also result in heavy rain inland, leading to river flooding which will combine with the storm surge in the low reaches of affected rivers’ (Miller, 1997).

’ For more information on causes of floods, see MILLER, 1997, pp 12-20

(11)

II - Flood mitigation : review of major structural and non-structural measures Apart from settling in non-floodable areas, the common way to solving flood problems, and especially urban storm drainage, has historically been the implementation of structural measures.

Civil works such as dams, levees, dykes, sewer networks, ditches, pumping stations, canals and reservoirs are then built to protect the settlement system or zone up to a pre- determined risk level (usually in relation to an estimated flood return period). In general this approach considers only the hydrologic and hydraulic implications of the problem which is solved by choosing the alternative that maximises the expected net benefits (Braga, 1998).

Yet, “Mother Nature can whip up a storm more intense than an engineer might have been economically permitted to provide for in his structural design” (Lindh, 1985).

More recently other less expensive non-structural measures have been suggested to act as an alternative or in a complementary way to the above mentioned structural measures, and also to reduce or minimise flood damage while avoiding high capital-intensive costs of structural options (Lindh, 1985). Non structural measures indeed involve a number of possibilities varying from flood warning systems to education of the general public and legal acts (e.g.: lan-use regulations) that can control or mitigate flooding related problems. The advantage of non-structural measures is that in general they are less expensive, easier to implement and sustainable. However they condition the active participation of a responsive population and necessitate effective mass education programs and respective institutional network (Braga, 1998).

Still, according to Lindh (1985), “deciding on the best approach (structural vs. non- structural) is complicated because benefits from such actions cannot always be expressed in monetary units (e.g.: reduced inconveniences, improved aesthetics, increased sense of security, change in risk perception)“.

III - Public participation in the mitigation of water-related disasters

Though flood control (i.e., disaster mitigation, preparedness and management) may be designed and achieved without the public, it cannot be implemented against it. “Calls for greater transparency, participation and accountability are often made in the name of democratic risk management [and intend] to produce more open and representative risk- management processes” (Hood, 1998). For instance, flood-related civil works may indeed raise local disagreement and conflicts on the side of local stakeholders (e.g. the so-called

“NIMBY Syndrome”. This necessary participation, if not commitment, of the public at risk is even increased when it comes to design and implement non-structural flood control measures, as explained above.

The design and the implementation of disaster mitigation strategies at local level is a complex task for appointed or elected authorities, for they have to cope with a high diversity of stakeholders. These stakeholders indeed show different perceptions and relationships to natural hazards, and reflect different socio-economic and socio-psychological backgrounds.

This diversity and complexity also very often characterise urban areas indeed, where socio- economic and cultural heterogeneity may be even more tangible than in rural areas.

Implementing public participation in disaster mitigation decision-making processes may thus

(12)

help local authorities to develop mitigation strategies that will both fit into the local context and answer the social expectations of differing population subgroups as regards disaster mitigation.

Urban areas appear to be systems with a complex “social morphology”, and cities often turn out to be places where socio-cultural and socio-economic differences, changes and conflicts are exacerbated and developed. Implementing public participation in disaster-related decision-making processes may thus help local authorities to develop mitigation strategies that will both fit into the local context and meet the social demand on disaster mitigation.

Thus may also be improved the level of capacity-building, as well as the response capacity of communities confronting natural disasters (Affeltranger, 1999).

Public participation in flood mitigation design therefore emerges as a powerful tool for more integrated disaster mitigation and urban water management. Still, the institutional set-up needs to be appropriate, local authorities should be prepared and trained, and so should be the representatives of the civil society, including private companies, non governmental organisations (NGOs), and the mass media. Preparing the (local) civil society and communities as a whole to both design and implement water-related participatory processes, shall help identify more clearly responsibilities regarding disasters, as well as increase the efficiency of mitigation and response strategies and actions. Public participation is a unique opportunity for authorities to assess the social feasibility of a local strategy for water-related disaster mitigation and management.

Still, building up at local level a consensus on flood mitigation, requires a new behaviour from all stakeholders, including 1) granting mutual legitimacy and recognition, 2) a strong capacity of dialogue, and 3) the management of decision-making and action-taking powers and processes. What are the stakeholders to be taken into account when designing local strategies for flood mitigation ? What can be the added-value of public participation as regards flood mitigation in urban areas ? What conditions must be set up to achieve public participation to the design of flood mitigation strategies ? What are the knowledge and skills needed at local level to implement public participation ? To what extent and how can local authorities be trained in this view ? These are some of the questions to which this report will attempt to propose elements of answers.

Communities often confronted with natural hazards may have developed through the years a so-called “culture of disasters”. Public participation is expected to turn this culture into a culture of risk, where individuals are more rationally aware of risks, as well as of ways to mitigate them. A culture of risk may then lead to a culture of prevention, or of mitigation, that would be likely to enable community members to take part to their own disaster capacity- building processes at local level, or in a more efficient and coherent way.

IV - Relation to the activities of UNESCO /HP-V and /HP-VI

This technical report intends to address and serve the objectives of both Project 4. and Project 7. of the IHP-V Programme (1996-2001). These projects are respectively entitled

“Comprehensive risk analysis” and “Non-structural flood control measures to balance risk- cost-benefit in flood control management in urban areas”. The issues addressed hereunder should also be of use for the objectives of the IHP-VI, in particular as regards increased co- operation between water specialists and other professionals (e.g.: urban and land-use planners, social science experts, health and security staff, elected decision-makers, etc.). This technical report is also meant to serve as a contribution of UNESCO Division of Water Sciences to the follow-up activities of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (voted by the

(13)

United Nations for 1990-2000). This report should as well serve as one of the background documents for a future IHP symposium on social and participatory aspects of non-structural flood control.

V - Outline of the report

This report shall be divided into three main parts as follows:

Part 1. What is public participation in water management ?,

Part 2. Public participation in water-related disaster mitigation, and Part 3. Practising public participation in flood-control.

Case studies are expected to provide the reader with an illustration of what participatory processes may look like in practice, and what outcome there shall be expected of public participation in flood control.

(14)

Part 1 - What is public participation in water management?

To start with, we propose to consider here definitions agreed upon and presented in the

“Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters”, also called the Aarhus Convention (see box 1). This Convention was discussed at the Fourth Ministerial Conference “Environment for Europe” in Aarhus, Denmark, on 23-25 June 1998.

Though “environmental matters” refer to an epistemological and practical field expanding beyond the specific issue of water-related disasters and flood control, we’propose to keep the above definitions as a common basis for further t.hinking in this text.

Box 1: Public participation: definitions agreed upon by the “Aarhus Convention”

“Public authority” means:

(a) Government at national, regional and other level;

(b) Natural or legal persons performing public administrative functions under national law, including specific duties, activities or services [in relation to the environment];

(c) Any other natural or legal persons having public rSesponsibilities or functions, or providing public services, in relation to the environment, under the control of a body or person falling within subparagraphs (a) or (b) above;

(d) The institutions of any regional economic integration organisation (. .)

“The public” means one or more natural or legal persons, and, in accordance with national legislation or practice their associations, organisations or groups;

“The public concerned” means the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the environmental decision-making process and output; for the purposes of this definition, non-governmental organisations promoting environmental protection and meeting any requirements under national law shall be deemed to have an interest.

In this report, unless the text indicates otherwise, the expression “authorities” will be understood as “public authorities”, as used in the introductory definitions. Moreover, a distinction will be made between “the public”, “the public concerned” and “the public at risk”.

7.7 Why public participation ? Who, or what, is the public ?

Public participation is a generic term identifying, on the one hand, an ethical and democratic value, and on the other hand, a series of technical procedures, also called participatory processes.

(15)

The value upon which public participation is developed considers that every individual, or citizen, has the democratic right to take part to public decision-making processes when decisions made and issues addressed by these processes shall somehow affect its life. According to Iskoyan (1999), “in issues pertaining to the environment, the improvement of access to information and public participation in decision-making increases the quality of decisions made and of their implementation, contributes to the awareness of the public regarding environmental problems, [presents] the public [with] an opportunity to express its concerns, and ensures adequate consideration of such interests by public authorities”. In other words, and more theoretically, there exist legitimate points of view different from the ones presented by [elected or appointed] authorities; there exists outside the State administration a valuable knowledge of expected or perceived consequences of a public project; local authorities and the State are no longer the only source entitled to say what the

“general interest” is, and [these authorities] may be contested (War-in, 1994).

A common way to practice this participatory right at “macro” level is to elect democratically representatives, such as Members of Parliament, the President, or other appointed officials in charge of making decisions for a country, a region or a city. Still, new tools and procedures for implementing a more direct public participation have been designed and implemented, initially in “western” or “developed” countries, in order to provide authorities managing public projects with a qualitative added-value of the public’s perception of these projects, as well as with a feedback on their implementation. This was for instance the case in the early seventies in North America, when projects with possible environmental impacts triggered public’s concern and first involved communities in related decision-making processes.

In the last decades, and in particular in democratic “western” countries, authorities have in the past been indeed increasingly confronted with NIMBY (“not-in-my-backyard”) syndrome situations. Such local protest is likely to take place when inhabitants neighbouring a project challenge or reject the change that it causes, arguing that it would induce negative consequences (negative social “externalities”), for instance regarding their quality of life and living conditions. Such conflicts, occurring at local level because of competing expectations on a same space or resource, were still often likely to produce impacts at national level in terms of public opinion and to have country-wide political costs. These conflicts also usually dealt with environmental issues (development of transport infrastructures threatening valuable biosphere areas, installation of industrial facilities, noise in dwellings close to airport areas) and often involved active and/or legal response from environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and similar citizen-based networks. Such reactions, at both local and national levels, to public projects that had been designed, approved and implemented by elected and/or appointed authorities, confronted governments with a concept increasingly shared by the public. This concept dealt with the limits of centralised decision-making in democratic countries. In other words, authorities in charge of the country/region/city may design public programs, projects and products that would eventually fail to meet the actual social expectations. Whether this non-compliance comes from a wrong definition and identification of the public expectations or from the lack of solutions and options for the public to choose from, would need to be analysed in each case. The idea remains that the

“voice of the people” (Fishkin, 1995) was neither listened to nor taken enough into account in several public decision-making processes.

In this context, and before we consider what might be the added-value of public participation in public decision making processes, we need to identify who (or what) the

(16)

public is. “The public” and “the public concerned” were briefly defined above, and this shall help us to have a first grasp on what the public is. Still, the definition of the public may be somehow different for two reasons. First, and when dealing with natural hazards and with water-related disasters, we may need to distinguish “the public concerned” (e.g. citizens nation-wide caring for their co-citizens confronting a disaster threat or suffering from it, or in other words “national solidarity and empathy”) from “the public at risk”, that is communities directly experiencing natural risks and hazards, as well as disasters and emergencies. Second, it may sometimes not be relevant, as we shall see later in the report, to consider “the public at risk” as an homogeneous entity, e.g. because of socio-economic differences, as well as differences in cultures and beliefs, and in geographical distribution and settlement. As a consequence, such “sociological mapping” of the public at risk may enable authorities to identify distinct ” (social) vulnerability levels” to hazards and disasters, in order to design and implement tailored community-based, or target-oriented, mitigation policies, strategies, and plans of action.

In other words, the identification of the public(s) confronting natural hazards is an essential basis for further identification and assessment of the public’s expectations as regards disaster mitigation: “the public consists of many subgroups having very different, often conflicting agenda. All are entitled to an opportunity to participate in urban water planning”

(Walesh, 1993).

1.2 Participatory Processes in Water Management (PPWM)

Early in 1989, the European Environment and Health Charter was adopted at the first European Conference on Environment and Health.

This Charter states that “every person shall have the right to information and consultation on the state of the environment and on plans, decision and measures which may affect the environment and human health, every person shall have the right to participate in the decision-making and shall be responsible for participating in the protection of the environment in the interest of individual health and the health of others”.

One of the major purposes of this declaration is to ensure public participation in environmental management, and invites to consider its implications as regards water management, as well as regarding flood control.

1.2.1 Why implement participatory processes in water management ?

These two paragraphs from Walesh (1993) may introduce best this subchapter presenting the historical background of public participation to water management, as well as the context in which participatory processes appeared to be potentially powerful tools in order to address and solve (urban) water management issues and problems (see box 2).

(17)

Box 2: New challenges for water professionals I

Two major challenges face today’s water professionals. The first is the technical challenge of finding solutions to increasingly complicated urban water problems. The second is to communicate effectively with the public, recognising both the public’s increasingly elevated goals relative to water and the public’s growing understanding of water science and technology (. . .).

Unfortunately, some engineers and other professionals with urban water planning responsibilities fail to appreciate the importance of the second challenge, or they recognise the challenge but are not prepared to meet it* (. . .).

Whereas Walesh clearly identifies two of the major challenges facing water professionals, yet we may discuss the point concerning “the public’s increasingly elevated goals relative to water and the public’s growing understanding of water science and technology”. Whether the general education and training level has been raising in developed and in some developing countries, makes little doubt. Yet, it is far from certain that most poor or vulnerable population segments have equally benefited from this evolution. In addition to this, it is worth being mentioned that the development of specialised magazines, news releases and TV/radio broadcasts on water-related issues may have contributed to a growing para- scientific culture among the general public. Still, such knowledge may not always be fully equivalent to a plain, scientific, understanding of complex flood-related issues.

Sharing the view of Walesh, Miller (1997) introduces one of his “(. . .) in the belief that a better-informed citizenry will build a constituency for the decision-makers to implement more rational flood mitigation policies”. We assume that “more rational” is meant here as

“more community-based”, since public participation is intended to introduce in public decision-making processes a rationality, that is non-Cartesian and non-linear. Lindh (1985) also shares this view, stressing that “successful water planning must be based on an integrated approach. The organisation must carefully consider the wider social and physical context (. . .).

In earlier times, water resource projects tended to be single purpose endeavours and could often be planned by one person. Today this is seldom the case, with most water resource projects being multipurpose in nature. For this reason, a team of persons is needed to furnish and interdisciplinary approach. (. . .)‘I.

Though water can generate disasters, such as floods, water also is today a scarce natural resource at risk. Indeed, international and intergovernmental Organisations, regional bodies, scientific and specialised institutions, governments as well as authorities at local level have become increasingly aware of growing water scarcity. As a consequence, these political leaders, decision-makers, scientists and NGOs have in the recent years issued a growing number of warnings towards public and private users of water. In the same time, there has been increasing research on the public’s relationships to water, and on the monitoring of water uses. The hypothesis has been that there may be a positive change in the way that people use (or misuse) water, provided that there be designed and implemented schemes for a concerted and sustainable use of water resources world-wide. In this context was forged the concept of

“Public Participation to Water Management” (PPWM), stating that the management of water resources may need expertise in sociology and political science, in complement of traditional engineering expertise in hydrology and hydraulics. Early in 1988, Desbordes and Servat

2 Regarding the training of water engineers and specialists to the concepts and practice of public participation, please see also subchapter 3.3.2. of the present report.

(18)

insisted that “there must be involved [in water management] proposals for technical solutions that could be well adapted to local socio-economic conditions. [Due to] fast urban growth, serious urban drainage problems cannot always be solved by means of simple technical transfer, thus making a specific approach necessary”. Geiger (1988) also considers that the involvement of the public is a condition for the success of water policies, and especially when designing and implementing new storm drainage systems and flood mitigation measures (see box 3).

Box 3: Integrating social and cultural conditions in the design of drainage options

The choice of a drainage system depends on meteorological conditions, and is influenced also by social and cultural conditions, and by financial and administrative constraints as well (. ..) Public information on and involvement in planning and construction will help later operation of such systems. It is necessary that the user of the drainage system understands its purpose. Public information and education programmes explaining advantages of different drainage systems and disadvantages of their misuse should lead to the acceptance of these new approaches and guarantee their [social]

feasibility.

Niemczynowicz (1988) gets even closer to the psycho-sociological dimension of water management and planning: “criteria for choosing storm water management policy differ from a country to another. Reasons for these differences are not always rational, but also include, like any human decision, feelings, beliefs, prejudices, irrational and ill-grounded practices”. In this context, one of the goals of authorities setting up participatory processes would be to get a clear picture of what characterises this qualitative and complex frame of decision-making for individuals and communities. In other words, there exist different approaches to the same water management problem, and Wallman (1993) speaks about a “necessary concentration of interests, in order to make people show sense and sensibility to water-related issues, to simplify and concentrate legal regulations on water, and to design administrative action, which can be understood [by the public]“. Kurz (1973) studied five unsuccessful urban planning efforts (not necessarily water-related) and identified four major grounds to project failure; he lists “poor public involvement” among these “deficiencies” (see box 4).

Box 4: Deficiencies identified in unsuccessful urban planning efforts

- lack of clearly presented objectives and standards [for project evaluation];

- poor public involvement efforts;

- inadequate co-ordination between government units and agencies;

- myopic approach to the identification, development and testing of [project] alternatives.

Eventually, several international agreements and conventions have, more or less recently, advocated for the participation of the public in both environmental matters and to water-related issues as well. The “Aarhus Convention” is a much recent example of this trend.

This Convention on “access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters” (Fourth Ministerial Conference “Environment for Europe”, Aarhus, Denmark, 23-25 June 1998), also called “The Aarhus Convention”, indeed provides a framework for public participation in water-related decision-making processes.

When defining the expression “Environmental information” (Art.2, 3.), the text of the Convention does not explicitly mention natural hazards and disasters as being part of environmental information that the public may wish to have access to. Still, several sentences

(19)

of Article 2., Part 3., of the Convention clearly mention “the state of human health and safety, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures, inasmuch as they are or may be affected by the state of the elements of the environment or, through these elements, by the factors, activities or measures referred to in subparagraph (b) [above]” (Art. 2, 3. (c)).

Moreover, paragraphs (Art. 4, par. 3. and 4.) stating reasons for refusing a request of environmental information, do not include issues related to natural hazards; in other words, natural disasters should belong to the public debate. Even more explicit is par. 1 of Article 5, on the “Collection and dissemination of environmental information” (see box 5).

Box 5 : Extract of the Aarhus Convention (Article 5, par. 1)

(c) In the event of any imminent threat to human health or the environment, whether caused by human activities or due to natural causes, all information which could enable the public to take measures to prevent or mitigate harm arising from the threat and is held by a public authority is disseminated immediately and without delay to members of the public who may be affected.

1.2.2 Implementation of participatory processes in water management

The International Conference on participatory processes in water management (PPWM), a satellite conference to the World Conference on Science, was held in Budapest, Hungary, on 28-30 June 1999 (PPWM conference participants eventually issued a joint declaration, for consideration by the Delegates to the World Conference on Science). For a list of the co- organising bodies of the PPWM event, please refer to annexed documents. The PPWM conference provided a unique opportunity to review the possible uses and goals of participatory processes in water-related issues and situations, as well as the practical aspects and difficulties for water practitioners implementing participatory processes. The term “water management” hereunder refers to activities ranging from watershed and water resources management, to flood mitigation and management, and up to the solution of water-related (transboundary or international) conflicts and tensions. This conference eventually also raised the issue of the level of public involvement in water management, as well as in water-related international agreements. In other words, what kind of public, or what representatives of the civil society, should take part in water management decision-making processes, as well as how and when ?

Numerous background papers were provided by the conference participants, and offer therefore a much valuable and comprehensive source for information and data. We hereunder summarised the main points addressed by the PPWM conference participants, which might be of use for the development of participatory plans, actions and projects, dedicated to the mitigation and management of water-related hazards in flood-prone areas. After having mentioned what possible water-related issues may be concerned with PPWM, we shall briefly indicate a) goals, b) methods and tools, as well as c) difficulties in the implementation of PPWM. References to practical case studies are intended to illustrate the theoretical points developed hereunder. To start with, there are several water-related issues likely to benefit from the development of participatory processes (see box 6).

(20)

Box 6 : Water-related issues concerned by PPWM

- water-related international agreements (including treaties on transboundary rivers, river basins and water resources);

- water-related bilateral and regional conflicts and tensions;

- the management of national and international river basins and groundwater;

- the conservation and rehabilitation of water capacities and quality at local level or in small catchment areas;

- catchment-based stormwater management and catchment level approach to integrated water management and planning, including the mitigation of water-related disasters and the reduction of vulnerability to water-related hazards;

- water-related decision-support systems, including for water allocation;

- environmental impact assessment and management of waste water treatment facilities;

- decision making processes on water resources in public (including the design of water-related legislation) and private sectors.

a) Goals and obiectives of narticipatorv processes in water management

At international level, as Shamir (2000) points out, several “publics” (individual and group stakeholders) have interest in a nation’s negotiations over international waters and the resulting agreements. An illustration of this can be found in the water negotiations in the Middle East. Mostert (2000) comes to a similar conclusion when he considers the management of international river basins3 (e.g. Rhine river), and another example is presented by Glas and Leentvaar (2000) in their analysis in a participatory process of seeking a solution in the transboundary water resources development problem of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros barrage project. Based on selected Asian experiences, Ti (2000) as well analysed participatory processes in transboundary river basin management,

At local level, as this was done in the Diirijgd Basin (Balaton Upperland, Hungary) participatory processes were implemented to strengthen local capacities for water conservation in a small catchment area (Vasarhelyi, 2000).. Globevnik (2000) also studied a catchment level approach to integrated water management planning in Slovenia, and Putaric et al. (2000) proposed to consider the ground water regime as a participatory process in water management, in the territory of autonomous province of Vojvodina. Kulig (2000) describes public participation in environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures of waste water treatment plants, and Tot-ok studied public involvement in water management of the Tisza River (Eastern Hungary). Another example can be found in Brown et al. (2000), who studied a catchment-based stormwater management initiative in Australia, that involved citizen participation in planning. As regards “concerted” land-use planning, Saint-Pierre et al. (1998) implemented a participatory process on the Ardeche and Loire rivers (France) in order to reach a consensus on land-use in flood-prone areas (Plans de Prkvention des Risques, PPR).

This initiative was conducted with governmental agencies and local authorities.

Several participants of the Budapest “PPWM” Conference also insisted on “the limitations of traditional technical response to the complex issue of the management of [water-related] community expectations and behaviours, (. . .) and the limitations of the current technocratic/rational policy models” (see in annex the “technocratic” and “social”

decision models, by Brown). In other words, a citizen-driven decision making model is an alternative to address the policy intent of involving the community, proposing a bottom-up,

3 More information on participatory aspects of transboundary river basin management can be found in the proceedings of the UN Experts Meeting on Public Participation in Water Management and

Compliance, held on 6 September 1999, Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland

(21)

controlled, decision-making process. Comparative assumptions were proposed, opposing the

“technocratic-driven” to the “social-driven” policy models (see box 7), and several advantages of “collaborative water planning” were identified and agreed upon by conference participants (see box 8).

Box 7: Comparative assumptions - Technocrati versus Social Model Technocratic policy model

- community is an appendix to the decision- making process

- representation and bureaucracy - power and control with government - uses technical expertise

- decreases complexity [simplification]

- driven by legislative requirements and professional biases

- single discipline experts - optimal solution is technical

Social policy model

- community is integral to the decision-making process

- democracy and citizenship - power and control with citizens - enables, empowers and educates - increases complexity [sophistication]

- driven by community needs - multidisciplinary process

- optimal solution through community partnerships Box 8: Advantages of collaborative water planning

- participatory processes contribute to consensus building, and consensus is the strongest decision;

- decisions based on consensus are more widely known and accepted by the community;

- consensus may help mobilise human and community resources for action;

- collaborative planning helps identifying all dimensions of a problem or decision;

- participatory processes contribute to the socio-economic cohesion of a community;

- participatory decisions support integrated, preventive, solutions, rather than end-of-pipe ones;

- collaborative planning involves least cost or no cost solutions.

Yet, an important task for authorities, planning to implement participatory processes in water management, is to design appropriate participation activities and actions at appropriate participation levels. In other words, the decision-making process is a continuum, in which several “intermediate decisions” are often made, and the concept of “public participation” may thus have different meanings, according to the time and place where it occurs. Creighton proposes four simple levels of participation, thus contributing to the design of adapted and efficient participatory processes (see box 9). Another interesting “ladder of participation” was proposed by Scales (1997), and referred to by Brown (see box 10).

Box 9 : Levels of participation (by Creighton, 2000) Procedural

LEVEL Public Consensus-seeking

Public Public

Information Involvement Involvement

BE INFORMED

Dispute Resolution/

Negotiation

GOAL OF THE BE HEARD BEFORE INFLUENCE AGREE

DECISION THE DECISION THE DECISION TO THE DECISION

(22)

LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION

According to Brown (1999), several perceived benefits of participatory processes have been identified and widely reproduced in the literature; they include :

a) Participation is used to improve policy and service outcomes by providing a forum for better informed decision making;

b) Participation is used to provide a forum for discussion and negotiation to set priorities and deal with competing and sectional interests;

c) Participation is a political strategy to persuade, to advance a proposal, or to be innovative;

d) Participation is used to seek to maintain a commitment to social justice (equity, access, participation and rights);

e) Participation is used to build citizenship, i.e. to enable people to have a say over decisions that impact on their lives - people can come together as citizens and deliberate about their common affairs.

b) Methods and tools for effective PPWM

It is essential that participatory processes be designed according to the specificity of each governance level considered in a given context. The objective of PPWM is to reach a concerted consensus involving all possible relevant stakeholders ; yet, this involvement may appear at different stages of the decision-making process, so that the added-value of discussion participants may be optimised and do not interfere with other decision levels.

PPWM is indeed meant to provide for “a solution based on technical and socio-economic facts, as well as on national and international agreements”.

Shamir (1999) puts the stress on the potential added-value of national legislation and structures, if any, likely to enable and “educate” citizens to participatory processes, and to contribute to the development of a “public participation culture”. Referring to the Jordan- Israeli Treaty, Shamir also insists that a closely co-ordinated management of the participation process is needed in order to exchange information, build trust and develop personal relation (Shamir also recalls the success, though difficult, of the negotiation on the involvement of regional water associations in the Middle East).

Barraque also insists that “community-level water management approaches are doing well in conjunction with appropriate subsidiary levels of governance”. This concept of subsidiarity was indeed an essential conclusion of the conference, but a puzzle also - there is actually no “universal public participation kit”, and participatory should be designed on a case-by-case basis. Indeed, water planners and policy makers designing methods and tools for a water-related participatory process should make sure that appropriate representative bodies

(23)

will speak for the different stakeholders. Designing PPWM is also strongly connected to the analysis of the policy cycle (Glas & Leentvaar, 2000) - see box 11. According to these authors, the objectives of the policy cycle are in short : i) to clarify and rationalise policy management solutions in objective terms, ii) to gather and present information to all interest groups involved in the project and those affected by the consequences, and iii) to prepare for, but not to make for, a final decision.

Box 11 : The policy cycle

Evaluation

Conflicts ?

Policy analysis

Monitoring

Implementation

Decision making

When dealing with national-level decision contexts, the most important point to address is the way that the participatory process will be institutionalised (Mostert, 2000). That is, how decision makers, involving the civil society and/or affected groups and individuals, will reach smaller NGOs and the public at large (the basin level is the right one for obtaining bottom-up information from water users).

The objective is here to obtain valuable information, creative suggestions, as well as an insight on the implementation modalities of the water-related decision at stake. Yet, the public alone should not be in charge of the final decision, the responsibility of which regards the river authority or the basin commission in charge of the management of the participatory process.

Referring to his experience in Asia, Huu Ti (2000) proposes four “strategic elements”

for the design of transboundary water-related participatory processes : i) shared vision, ii) mutual understanding, iii) mutual trust and iv) common doubt. There is little doubt that these principles may be also useful for authorities designing and implementing local, community- based, strategies for water management and flood mitigation. Langton (2000) also provides ten “principles” for “meaningful public participation” (see box 12) and explains that :

“conceiving of public participation according to these principles (. . .) should improve the quality of public involvement, increase the capacity of participatory processes to adapt to changes in the civic environment, and lead to greater community appreciation, trust and support”.

The impact of this approach is further reinforced when a public agency joins with others to help build a strong civic infrastructure. Yet, we may think the “community good”, or

“local” general interest, sometimes may not be in full accordance with the society’s general interest. In that case, stakeholders involved in the decision process may be confronted with difficult trade-offs.

(24)

Box 12 : Ten principles for meaningful public participation 1 - Always seek the community good,

2 - Develop a community relations approach, 3 - Strengthen the civic culture,

4 - Involve the entire organisation, 5 - Assure senior management support,

6 - Be frequent, if not “virtual” (e.g. by using internet),

[e.g. by relying on the new technologies of information and communication],

7 - Plan and evaluate continuously with rigor [and communicate evaluation results to the public], 8 - Share leadership responsibility,

9 - Collaborate with other agencies, 10 - Integrate and respond to public input.

Creighton is an early designer and practitioner of participatory processes ; he insists that an effective analysis of the decision making process may help avoid several difficulties in the implementation of public participation. Creighton also clearly depicts the “stages of public participation planning (see box 13) :

1) the decision of interest to the public should not be scattered between separate decision- making processes (one appropriate forum is needed to debate on choices and decisions), 2) there must be a consensus on the problem definition,

3) the public should not be provided with a single YES/NO choice only, and

4) the public should not be invited to participate in the decision process only after the time when “real” decisions have been made (public participation techniques are proposed by Creighton (2000), and were merged further down in the present report along with some of the participatory tools identified by Walesh).

Box 13 : Stages of public participation planning 1 - Decision analysis

- clarifying the decision being made

- specifying the planning/decision-making steps and schedule

- deciding whether public involvement is needed, and for what purpose 2 - Public participation planning

- specifying what is needed to involve the public at each step of the planning/decision-making process

- identifying the stakeholders, internal and external

- identifying techniques to be used at each step of the process, taking into account the needs of different population subgroups and stakeholders

- linking the techniques in an integrated plan 3 - Implementation planning

Objective: to design the activities of public participation, for example:

- develop a workshop agenda - decide where meetings will be held - decide who will make the presentations

- decide feedback activities and communication options for presentation of results