EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 09 ) 93 1 –9 39 a v a i l a b l e a t w w w. s c i e n c e d i r e c t . c o m w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / e c o l e c o n Participation and evaluation for sustainable river basin governance Paula Antunes a,⁎, Giorgos Kallis b , Nuno Videira a , Rui Santos a a Ecological Economics and Environmental Management Group, CENSE — Center for Environmental and Sustainability Research, Faculty of Sciences and Technology, New University of Lisbon, Portugal b ICREA & Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain AR TIC LE D ATA ABSTR ACT Keywords: This paper introduces a special section devoted to participation and evaluation for Water resources management sustainable river basin governance. The departing point for this research was the Stakeholder participation recognition that although there is a relative agreement regarding the need to develop new Water governance multi-dimensional, inclusive and plural approaches to water resource management, there Deliberative processes is still a deficiency of related methodologies and tools. This acknowledgement has motivated the undertaking of the ADVISOR — Integrated Evaluation for Sustainable River Basin Governance research project, which aimed at improving the understanding of evaluation processes, as part of river basin planning and management, and to test the use of specific tools to support the conduct of participatory processes. The paper starts with a discussion of the concept of integrated water resources management and an illustration of the water policies that have been adopted in different countries as a response to these trends. The conceptual framework that was developed in ADVISOR is then presented, as well as the main results from the ex-post analysis of the decision processes regarding five water related projects in different European countries. This analysis concluded that, in most situations, the decision-making processes fell short of including the interests, perceptions and values of affected parties. The remaining of the paper introduces the articles that form this special section, mostly devoted to the testing of new platforms for participation and deliberation. In the final section, a discussion on the assumptions and limitations of deliberative processes is presented, based on the results from the application of the different methods. Further research needs on the integration of different deliberative tools and on the integration of deliberation with decision processes are identified. © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction In contemporary society, water is a major theme of scientific, economic, political social and human debate (Narasimhan, 2005). This stems from the fact that water is a vital element for all living creatures; water has played a central role in the development of human societies since the ancient times. The biophysical foundations for this are summarized by the World Water Council: “Water is life. All living organisms are predominantly made of water: human beings about 60%, fish about 80%, plants between 80% and 90%. Water is necessary for all chemical reactions that occur in living cells and is also the medium through which information is exchanged between cells. The sustainability of human development depends on the hydrological cycle, since water is essential for food production and all living ecosystems”. ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: mpa@fct.unl.pt (P. Antunes). 0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.004 932 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 8 ( 2 00 9 ) 9 3 1 –9 39 Water availability is an essential component in socioeconomic development and poverty reduction. Factors such as demographic change, growing urbanization, poor sanitation, widespread poverty, ecosystem degradation, contamination of water supplies, have a significant impact both on the resource and on managing water in an integrated, sustainable and equitable manner (UNESCO-WWAP, 2006). Management of water resources is a particularly challenging and difficult task, where the complexities arising from the functioning of hydrological cycles and biological systems are combined with the multiple perspectives, needs, values and concerns associated with the use of water for humanrelated purposes. Given the complexity, uncertainty and increasing vulnerability of both natural and human systems, water managers around the world agree that the only way forward is through an inclusive and integrated approach to water resources management (UNESCO-WWAP, 2006). This need is even more acute in a context of global change, where the already severe problems of water scarcity, drought, sanitation, occurrence of extreme events, and changes in rainfall patterns and run-off will be exacerbated (Kashyap, 2004). Although there is a relative agreement regarding the need to develop new approaches to water resources management, accounting for the multi-dimensional nature of water problems, the calls for inclusive governance, the plurality of perspectives that have to be integrated and the complexity and uncertainty regarding water resources, there is still a considerable lack of scientific background, methodologies and tools to support these tasks (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2008; Turton et al., 2007). 2. Challenges and policy responses in water resources governance The concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) has evolved as the response of the water resources scientific and technical community to the above mentioned calls for a new approach to deal with water related issues. IWRM has been defined as “a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems” (GWP-TAC, 2000). Recently, the concept of IWRM has received some criticism. For example, Biswas (2004) argues that the concept of IWRM is not really new and that the definition formulated by the Global Water Partnership is “unusable, or un-implementable, in operational terms”. Other authors argue that concept of IWRM has been taken up too lightly by the water resources community (water scientists and water professionals) with a lack of acknowledgment of the political dimension of the concept (Gyawali et al., 2006). Environmental fundamentals, such as river basin management, and economic fundamentals, relating to the value of water, are central to the paradigm and to the implementation of IWRM. However, IWRM demands much more than the mere recognition of the environmental and economic value of water and the planning of engineering and economic interventions. IWRM “is an intensely political process because water users have interests […]. Prioritising water allocation with an eye on the economy in general, and prioritizing investment to reduce environmental impacts, will conflict with the immediate concerns of current water users” (Allan, 2003). The acknowledgement of this political dimension of IWRM brings about the need to adopt different approaches, which include participation, consultation and inclusive political institutions to enable the mediation of the conflicting interests over water. This inclusive political process requires that the interests of civil society, hierarchy (government), social movements (NGOs) and the private sector are included in the policy making discourse (Allan, 2003). The concept of water governance has emerged as the “range of political, social economic and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources and the delivery of water services at different levels of society” (Rogers and Hall, 2003). Although context plays a central role in the conceptualization and operationalisation of water governance in a given region/country, a water governance framework must in all cases include policies to enable participatory water management, capacity to engage in the policy process and the ability to negotiate among stakeholders (Currie-Alder et al., 2006). Governments in different parts of the World have recently acknowledged the new requirements for water resources management arising from these challenges and have undergone important reforms in their water resources management policies. The European Water Framework Directive (WFD) (Directive 2000/60/EC) was published in October 2000 with the purpose of establishing the overall framework for water resources governance in Europe. The key objective of the WFD is to achieve a “good water status for all European waters” by 2015 (art. 4). The Directive establishes the following key aims (European Commission, 2007): ■ expanding the scope of water protection to all waters, surface waters and groundwater; ■ achieving “good status” for all waters by a set deadline; ■ water management based on river basins; ■ “combined approach” of emission limit values and quality standards; ■ getting the prices right; ■ getting the citizen involved more closely; ■ streamlining legislation. The WFD defines the river basin as the geographical unit for water resources planning and management and asks for the prior evaluation and authorization of all new river basin interventions. For each river basin district — some of which will traverse national frontiers — a “river basin management plan” will need to be established and updated every six years. Several countries in Africa have also been undertaking important reforms in their water resources policies. One of the most cited examples is the water reform initiated in South Africa after the end of the apartheid regime that culminated with the publication of the National Water Act in 1998. The fundamental principle underlying this legislation is that water is a national resource, owned by the people of South Africa and held in custodian by the state. The Act provides for the creation of catchment management agencies that must draw a EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 09 ) 93 1 –9 39 management strategy for the catchment and will have to perform vital functions for the implementation of the Act. In fulfilling their functions, the agencies are required to actively promote community participation (Hamman and O'Riordan, 2000). In Zimbabwe the water policy reform process culminated with the publication of the Water Act and the Zimbabwe National Water Authority Act in 1998. This reform basically entailed democratizing water resource management in Zimbabwe by (Manzungu, 2004): - Revoking legal provisions that guaranteed privileged access to agricultural water by white farmers; - De-linking water rights from land rights, since the majority of black population did not have land rights, and - Broadening participation beyond water rights holders. Water availability, water quality and water management have emerged as significant national issues in recent years in Australia (NWC, 2007), following bellow average rainfall and drought conditions in many areas of the country. The cornerstone of Australia's water reform is the National Water Initiative (NWI), which is being implemented since 2004, aiming to ensure the health of river and groundwater systems, service rural and urban communities, as well as increasing the productivity and efficiency of Australia's water use (COAG, 2004; Vardon et al., 2007). Through the NWI all the governments across Australia have committed to several actions addressing issues related with water accounting, water pricing and service provision in water markets, conservation of high value water ecosystems, and community involvement in water planning in rural and metropolitan areas (NWC, 2007). In the United States, the principal law dealing with water quality issues is the Clean Water Act (CWA), which was approved in 1972 (P.L. 92-500). This comprehensive statute employs several regulatory and non-regulatory tools aiming to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of national waters (Copeland, 2007). Recent efforts to thoroughly amend the act have stalled and the last major reform dates back from 1987 (P.L. 100-4). Nevertheless, extensions or modifications to CWA programs have progressively shifted focus towards more efficient, integrated and participatory watershed approaches, as illustrated by some of EPA's water protection strategies for the period between 2006– 2011: issuing watershed discharge permits; implementing the Water Quality Trading Policy; assessing infrastructure needs by watershed; and involving stakeholder groups in water protection actions (Copeland, 2006; USEPA, 2006). Evaluation and participation play a central role in water resources planning processes in all these legislative frameworks. Evaluation here refers to the process of assessing and comparing the relative values of one or more courses of action (Kallis, 2007). Public participation is understood here as “any of several mechanisms intentionally instituted to involve the lay public or their representatives in administrative decisionmaking” (Beierle and Cayford, 2002). Evaluation and comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the different management options is a crucial stage in the IWRM process. 933 For example, in the WFD, evaluation is required in the following cases (Kallis, 2007): 1. Preparation of river basin plans and programmes of measures, which involve, among other tasks, the identification of significant water management issues in each river basin, the identification of necessary additional measures in order to achieve objectives and a decision on a final cost-effective programme of measures; 2. Designation of protected areas, namely drinking water sources, areas with “economically significant aquatic species”, bodies of recreational waters including bathing waters, nutrient-sensitive vulnerable zones and areas for the protection of habitats or species where water is an important factor in their protection; 3. Designation of heavily modified waters, including, for example, water bodies such as regulated rivers, dams, and artificial canals, where lower standards apply and the aim is reduced from achieving good ecological status to “good ecological potential”; 4. Derogation from objectives, whereby a Member State may aim to achieve less stringent environmental objectives for specific bodies of water when they are so affected by human activity that the achievement of the objectives would be “infeasible” or “disproportionately expensive”; 5. Authorizations of actions such as abstractions and impoundments of water as well as any other new activity in a river basin with “significant adverse impacts on the status of water”. Participation in a river basin planning process is also a key requirement of the WFD (Article 14) (CEC, 2000): 1. Active involvement of all interested parties in the implementation of the Directive shall be encouraged by Member States, in particular in the production, review and updating of the river basin management plans; 2. Each river basin district shall ensure that the public (including users) has access to information and is consulted by the authorities regarding the timetable and work programme for the production of the plan, the interim overview of the significant water management issues in the river basin, and the draft copies of the river basin management plan; 3. Authorities shall report back on how the consultation process affected the formulation of the river basin management plan. Unless the evaluation procedure of new plans and projects evolves into a new, multi-dimensional and multi-stakeholder participatory deliberative1 approach, river basin objectives, as expressed in the WFD, will be at stake (Videira et al., 2007). 1 Deliberation refers to a particular sort of discussion that involves the careful and serious weighing of reasons for and against some proposition. It is the act of considering different points of view and coming to a reasoned decision that distinguishes deliberation from a generic group activity. Emphasis is given to the product that arises from discussion (e.g. a decision or set of recommendations), and the process through which that product comes about (Fearon, 1998; Abelson et al. 2003; Renn, 2006). 934 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 8 ( 2 00 9 ) 9 3 1 –9 39 However, this Directive does not provide any guidance to river basin authorities on how to carry such evaluations. The implementation of the WFD requires the development of interdisciplinary (or al least multidisciplinary) research, as nearly all elements of the WFD have technical, ecological, economic, legal and administrative aspects. Furthermore, the research should involve the major stakeholders and be pragmatic (Mostert, 2003). 3. New approaches — the ADVISOR project This special section synthesizes the main results developed under the ADVISOR — Integrated Evaluation for Sustainable River Basin Governance research project, funded by the European Commission, under the 5th Framework Research Program2. The main aim of the project was to improve the understanding of evaluation processes, as part of river basin planning and management, and to test the use of specific tools to support the conduct of integrated and participatory processes. A conceptual framework for integrated evaluation of river basin interventions was developed, consisting of three interrelated dimensions (Fig. 1) (Videira et al., 2007): ■ Information: collecting and presenting the relevant scientific information to the evaluation, accounting for the quality of data, the complexity of the problem and the uncertainty of the future, and allowing for multiple description and explanatory frameworks; ■ Assessment: applying an assessment module to the data, consisting of a comprehensive evaluation of the plausible alternative actions, accounting for different sustainability related criteria; ■ Process: actively involving the civil society and the stakeholders in the process of building-up the information base and performing the assessment. All these dimensions are framed by the institutional, political and socio-economical context in which the river basin governance issue occurs, which forms the fourth vertice of the ADVISOR tetrahedron. The ADVISOR project followed a two-tiered research methodology, comprising: ■ The development of a robust theoretical understanding of the barriers and opportunities for integrated evaluation processes in a pan-European, river basin context, based on the ex-post analysis of five project/plan evaluation processes in different European countries, and the horizontal comparison of those findings under the lens of each dimension of ADVISOR's conceptual framework; ■ The test of different methods to support the implementation of integrated river basin evaluation processes, aimed at promoting sustainability and improved governance of such processes. The participatory methods tested included scenario workshops, mediated modeling, and social-multicriteria evaluation. 2 Contract EVK1-CT-2000-00074. Fig. 1 – ADVISOR's conceptual framework for integrated evaluation. Within the scope of ADVISOR an ex-post analysis of the decision processes regarding five water related projects was undertaken. These cases included the Alqueva Dam Multipurpose Project in Portugal, the Evinos reservoir in Greece, the river Ebro inter-basin transfer in Spain, the Grensmass flood protection project in the river Meuse in the Netherlands and the designation of a rural area in Ythan, Scotland as a nitrate vulnerable zone (NVZ). The analysis of the evaluation processes undertaken in these 5 cases revealed that, in general (with the exception of the Grensmaas case), the purpose of participation was still limited to providing accountability rather than contributing to the substance of policy. The real impacts of participation stood only for the minimum required level of informing the public; there was no true involvement and collaboration of the interested parties in the evaluation processes (Table 1) (Videira et al., 2006). This review has also shown that the consultation techniques used in the cases, mostly public hearings and public comments, fell short of including the interests, perceptions and values of the affected parties. This confirmed the need to test other platforms and tools to promote participation and deliberation in the context of the WFD implementation process and to meet the requirement arising from water policy developments in other parts of the World (Videira et al., 2006). 4. Platforms for participation and deliberation. Presentation of the special section The first paper in this special section (Guimarães-Pereira and Corral Quintana, 2006) presents a framework to enhance quality assurance of evaluation of river basin planning and governance processes based on 3 pillars and 1 beam: inclusive governance, transparent assessment, socially robust knowledge and extended peer review. It was developed based on the past evaluation of the five cases of European river basin governance processes studied in ADVISOR, entailing analysis of emergent patterns and linkages among the four vertices of the ADVISOR tetrahedron (context, information, assessment and participation), and looking into justifications of past practice according to four types of context: institutional, societal, knowledge and 935 EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 09 ) 93 1 –9 39 Table 1 – Expost case studies analysed in ADVISOR: overview of the participatory processes (Videira et al., 2006) Project overview The Alqueva Multipurpose Project (AMP) was conceived in the 1950's as a strategic water reservoir for the Alentejo region in southern Portugal. The Alqueva dam is one of the biggest dams on Western Europe. The project was approved in 1995 and aimed to promote regional development of Alentejo; the AMP was designed mainly for agriculture purposes, but it also covers electricity production and tourism development (Videira et al., 2002). The River Evinos reservoir in Greece was built to supply water for the city of Athens and is located 210 km to the west of the city. This project was conceived in 1964. However, the construction of the reservoir was decided as an immediate response to a critical drought faced by the city in 1990 and 1992. The reservoir is a small/medium scale project (Hatzilacou et al., 2002). The River Ebro inter-basin water transfer is part of the Spanish National Hydrological Plan (PHN). The strategic objective of the PHN is to reach a general water balance in Spain by means of the distribution of water resources between the so-called “surplus” basins and “basins with structural deficits”. The transfer of around 1050 hm3 of water per year was approved in 2001, despite the observed strong social unrest (Del Moral et al., 2002). The Grensmaas project developed in The Netherlands is located in the River Meuse, between Maastricht and Roosteren in the province of Limburg and along the frontier with Belgium. The project aimed to combine the commercial extraction of gravel with protection against flooding and the development of a large natural area (Van Leeuween et al., 2002). The River Ythan catchment was designated a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) in the year 2000. This is an intensively farmed lowland area in the North East Scotland covering about 69000 ha. Agriculture is the dominant form of land-use in the catchment, with about 90% of the land area under some form of agricultural production. The River Ythan and estuary are areas of national and international conservation importance (Hill et al., 2002). Level of Major stakeholder groups involved participation in the evaluation process Participatory platforms Overall influence of participation on the final decision Consultation National, regional and local authorities Environmental NGO's Local populations European Commission Expert panels Public hearings Written statements Follow-up Commission Participation had a major influence only during the follow-up and monitoring stages of the project Information National authorities Environmental NGO's Water professionals European Commission Written statements Participation did not have a major influence on the final decision to approve the reservoir Consultation National, regional Public hearings and local authorities Written Environmental statements NGO's Water professionals European Commission Participation did not play a major influence on the final decision although it influenced some of the adopted measures Involvement and collaboration Public meetings National, regional and local authorities Written Environmental statements NGO's Local populations Participation influenced the design of project alternatives and programmes of measures Consultation National, regional Public hearings and local authorities Written statements Environmental NGO's Water professionals European Commission Participation did not have a major influence on the final decision. Adapted from Arnstein (1969). methodological. The paper also hints on quality requirements that could be recommended for future practice of river basin governance evaluation activities. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is a common tool used in the appraisal of water projects, and the WFD calls for its use to support decisions concerning which river basin investments are worthwhile and which are excessively expensive (“disproportionate costs”) and, therefore, should not be undertaken. Disproportionate costs justify derogation from objectives. Spash et al. (2006) make an argument for the extension of standard economic approaches to valuation by including psychological and ethical factors. They study a case 936 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 8 ( 2 00 9 ) 9 3 1 –9 39 of valuation of biodiversity improvement options in the Tummel catchment in Scotland. Their survey demonstrates that psychological and ethical factors may offer a better understanding of the motives behind responses to contingent valuation than standard socio-economic variables, implying that alternative means of measuring an individual's pluralistic values should be taken into account in order to assess the validity and meaning of willingness to pay. The remaining three papers take on from where this insight leaves us, and report on efforts to develop such alternative, pluralistic means of mediating and assessing competing values. The first of these (Videira et al., 2008), deals with the application of a participatory modeling methodology to a case study in the lower part of the Guadiana River Basin (Baixo Guadiana, Portugal). A group of stakeholders collaborated throughout three workshops in the interactive development of a mediated model scoping the main problems, pressures and impacts in the river basin. The model was then used to perform policy simulations and to draw a preliminary action plan for the Baixo Guadiana. The article discusses the issue of group stability and implications of volatile stakeholder groups in participatory modeling processes. The experience revealed the flexibility of the method in adapting to different contexts and participatory designs and the capacity to structure the active involvement of stakeholders, providing an open and shared language for collaborative policy design, fostering learning and knowledge integration. Kallis et al. (2007) discuss the use of deliberative visioning (DV), defined as a process of inclusive, multi-stakeholder deliberation over a desirable future. The authors look critically at the assumptions of deliberative visioning benefiting from a case study of a scenario workshop in the Greek island of Naxos. They argue that there are fundamental choices to be made concerning how to frame the process, who to invite and how to facilitate the workshop. The authors conclude that whereas visioning motivates participants to work together and provides a good framework to systematize discussion, it is not necessarily effective for developing systemic perspectives or plan actions. This is especially true in contexts where there is lack of a collaborative policy culture and where there are no institutions to integrate effectively a deliberative process with other processes of policy or social change. The need to account for multiple dimensions in the evaluation of river basin interventions, associated with the calls for more effective public involvement in decision making processes as well as the need to handle the complexities and uncertainties associated with water governance issues lead to the effort to develop new evaluation approaches. Paneque et al. (2006), present the results of applying a participative multi-criteria analysis approach to a case dealing with the evaluation of urban supply alternatives in Costa del Sol Occidental in Malaga (Spain). In this experiment, multi-criteria and social research techniques were combined, relying on social actors' involvement throughout the research work. The participatory process allowed to unveil framings, perspectives, values and interests, as well as understanding of the social and institutional aspects in water governance. Results point to the potential of participatory multi-criteria evaluation in supporting the identification and promoting a wider acceptance of policy options by the social actors involved in water decisions (Paneque et al., 2006). 5. Towards integrating deliberative processes Ecological economists see in deliberative processes, like the ones presented in this issue, an alternative to standard economic appraisal techniques, such as contingent valuation studies (Zografos and Howarth, 2008; Spash et al., 2006). Deliberative methods try to account for multiple values, uncertainty in information and asymmetries between individuals. But this emphasis on deliberative methods as alternatives, foreshadows that they too have their own limitations and their own assumptions and framings as much as CBA does. This points to an interesting future research agenda of comparing the strengths and weaknesses, framings and assumptions of different deliberative methods. Vatn (2008), for example, proposes to think of alternative decision Table 2 – Comparison of three deliberative methods, participatory modeling (PM), deliberative visioning (DV) and social multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) Tool PM Advantages Creates a group learning process; Educative Accommodation of participants with complexity Systems approach DV SMCE Long-term thinking Educative Fosters dialogue and trust Creative thinking, innovative ideas “Win-win” partnerships Quantitative and qualitative information used Use of formal assessment tools Disadvantages Quantitative model building is over-dependant on professional support. Simulation model demands robust information. Too general, compromise statements may result Much dependant on quality of facilitation Limited time to assimilate information and reach concrete decisions Complicated, may constrain debate in comparison to more free-flow methods Over-dependant on professional support Deliberation goals Social learning / Co-production of knowledge Consensus building Innovative solutions Appreciating differences Social learning /Co-production of knowledge Innovative solutions Win-win partnerships Appreciating differences Innovative solutions Win-win partnerships Conflict resolution Appreciating differences Decision 937 EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 09 ) 93 1 –9 39 processes as institutions that assume, and by extension, construct different subjects and different visions of the good society. If CBA assumes rational, selfish individuals and a society where total utility is increased by the competitive pursuit of individual desires, then what is the alternative vision of different deliberative techniques? The ADVISOR project generated, but did not fully address, these interesting questions. Still some preliminary comparisons of the different deliberative methods were possible (Table 2). The essential difference between the three methods (participatory modeling, deliberative visioning and social multi-criteria) lies in the tool they use to structure deliberation and aid decision-making: a dynamic model, a vision of the future, and a multi-criteria matrix of alternatives, respectively. This choice of tool affects both the nature of mental and learning processes fostered and the type of substantive outputs delivered. For example, visions aim to unleash the creative powers of futures thinking. Model-building aims to learning by appreciating complex structural dynamics. Multi-criteria evaluation contributes to a better appraisal of options and trade-offs. All three processes examined in this issue used a “stakeholder analysis” for the identification of participants to include in the process. The perception of society as the amalgam of interests articulated along stakeholder lines is a Western one, and actually one that did not easily fit the southern European socio-political context of the case studies (see Kallis et al., 2007). The processes partly treated and constructed participants as “stakeholders” and this had implications, good and bad, on subsequent participant behavior and stance during the process. A stakeholder view of society is not necessarily the best one, as the individualistic vision of CBA, isn't either. We can instead start thinking about different assumptions and constructions, fit for different purposes, and different models of participant selection, fit with different democracy ideals and process outcomes (Table 3). These differences are not merely of theoretical interest. They determine the relative applicability of the methods for different decision-making and planning purposes. For example, deliberative visioning and participatory modeling appear well suited for the early stages of a water resource planning process (problem scoping and goals/alternatives identification). They serve well educative purposes and can support capacity-building of the participants. They are however less capable of resolving long-standing conflicts and sustaining consensus. In comparison, social multi-criteria evaluation is much better equipped to evaluate alternatives, reveal tradeoffs and seek convergence between divergent stakeholders' views. Such complementarities point to potential hybrid methods or combinations of several methods along the planning process (Kallis et al., 2006, Antunes et al., 2006). This is the idea behind the concept of an Integrated Deliberative Decision Process (IDDP) launched and operationalised in the ADVISOR project (Kallis et al., 2007). IDDP hints to two levels of integration: integration between different deliberative processes employed to aid decision-making, and integration between the deliberative activities with the rest of the decision process (its non-deliberative political part, or its normal science part). IDDP recognizes first, that the goals of a deliberative process should be set in the outset and linked to specific decision outputs. Participation often is considered as being “good” per se, and is conducted on the side, without clear feedbacks and connections to the actual decisions. If participatory and deliberative processes do not have clear goals, other than the goal of having them, it is no surprise that their outcomes appear partial and irrelevant to decisions. For example, it is important to determine in advance whether the goal from participative deliberation is to educate the participants, to reach consensus over a controversial aspect, to generate innovative ideas for solutions, to propose and plan specific policy actions or to give Table 3 – Comparison of different participant selection procedures Selection Procedure Open invitation Stakeholders Advantages Unrestricted participation Disproportionate representation — process “hijacked” by interested groups who show up or have resources, capacity Lack of democratic legitimacy Not applicable when restrictions in number of participants apply (as in more deliberative techniques) “Those who matter and can implement” Limited democratic legitimacy Invite the excluded Bias in selection Representative - Partly representative Random Random Disadvantages Higher democratic legitimacy Restrictions to people who might wish to participate Not representative of population Stakeholders might not always represent constituency (shifting positions in meeting may not reflect shifting positions of constituency) Tendency to employ established networks of actors Bias / limits in representation criteria Limited room for representation in small group numbers Lack of power to implement decisions / nonrepresentative of real decision making power Deliberation goals Social learning /Co-production of knowledge (consultation) Appreciating differences Social learning / Co-production of knowledge Conflict resolution Agreements – Action Plan “Win-win” partnerships Innovative solutions Appreciating differences Decisions (verdicts) 938 EC O LO GIC A L E CO N O M ICS 6 8 ( 2 00 9 ) 9 3 1 –9 39 space to the expression of conflict (Holmes and Scoones, 2000). Each of these goals calls for different types of stakeholder selection and process design, and in turn can contribute to different stages and tasks of a decision process. Second, several deliberative tools should be combined together in a longer-time process. The one-off participatory workshop model is clearly limited. Time and commitment are needed to deliberate upon alternatives and develop shared understandings and basis for negotiation and conflict management. Time and resources are also needed in order to incorporate scientific information in the process and to build the capacity of participants to understand this information (with its uncertainties) and use it. Since each single tool or selection process has certain biases and limitations, it might be better to combine different methods and approaches, such as for example a more open forum, with a stakeholder multicriteria evaluation and a random selection citizens' jury. This special section presents a collective effort in the understanding of the role of participation and deliberation in the context of water resources management and in the experimenting of tools for operationalisation of participatory deliberative processes. The papers that follow are one step in a discussion that is far from finished; important challenges remain ahead both for science and for public policy. Acknowledgements The research presented in this paper, and in this special section, was funded by the European Commission under the 5th Framework Research Programme, through the project ADVISOR — Integrated Evaluation for Sustainable River Basin Governance (contract EVK1-CT-2000-00074). REFERENCES Abelson, J., Forest, P.-G., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., Gauvin, F.-P., 2003. Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine 57, 239–251. Allan, J.A., 2003. IWRM/IWRAM: a new sanctioned discourse? Occasional Paper 50, SOAS Water Issues Study Group, School of Oriental and African Studies/King's College London, University of London. Antunes, P., Santos, R., Videira, N., 2006. Participatory decision making for sustainable development — the use of mediated modeling techniques. Land Use Policy 23, 44–52. Arnstein, S., 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 30, 216–224. Beierle, T., Cayford, J., 2002. Democracy in Practice. Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Resources for the Future, Washington D.C. Biswas, A., 2004. Integrated water resources management: a reassessment. A Water Forum Contribution. Water International 29 (2), 248–256. CEC — Council of the European Communities, 2000. Council directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Communities L 327. COAG — Council of Australian Governments, 2004. Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative. available online at [http://www.coag.gov.au/]. Copeland, C., 2006. Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act. Congressional Research Service. The Library of Congress. available online at [http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/ CRS/]. Copeland, C., 2007. Clean Water Act: A Review of Issues in the 109th Congress. Congressional Research Service. The Library of Congress. available online at [http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/ CRS/]. Currie-Alder, B., Thompson, L., Bustamante, R., 2006. Insights on water governance: research in the Middle East/North Africa and Latin America. Presented at Survival of the Commons: Mounting Challenges and New Realities, the Eleventh Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, Bali, Indonesia, June 19–23, 2006. Del Moral, L., Pedregal, B., Calvo, M., Paneque, P., 2002. River Ebro interbasin water transfer. Work Package 1 of project ADVISOR. Universidad de Sevilla. European Commission, 2007. Introduction to the new EU Water Framework Directive. available online at [http://ec.europa.eu/ environment/water/water-framework/info/intro_en.htm]. Fearon, J.D., 1998. Deliberation as discussion. In: Elster, J. (Ed.), Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 44–68. Guimarães-Pereira, A., Corral-Quintana, S., 2006. Quality of River Basin Governance Processes, a 3 Pillars & 1 Beam Framework. Ecological Economics. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.014. Gyawali, D., Allan, J.A., Antunes, P., Dundeen, B., Laureano, P., Fernández, C., Monteiro, P., Khanh, H., Noväcek, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2006. EU-INCO water research from FP4 to FP6 (1994–2006). A Critical Review, European Commission, Directorate General Research, International Scientific Cooperation, EUR22017. Office for Official Publications of the European Union, Luxembourg. 92-79-01022-0. GWP-TAC, 2000. Integrated water resources management, global water partnership. Technical Advisory Committee Background Paper No 4. Global Water Partnership, Stockholm. Hamman, R., O'Riordan, T., 2000. South Africa's Policy Transition to Sustainability: Environmental and Water Law. available online at [http://www.africanwater.org/SAPolicyEnv_and_water.htm]. Hatzilacou, D., Kallis, G., Coccossis, H., 2002. The River Evinos Reservoir, Work Package 1 of project ADVISOR. University of the Aegean. Hill, G., Urama, K., Spash, C., Wynn, G., 2002. The designation of River Ythan and Estuary as a nitrate vulnerable zone. Work Package 1 of project ADVISOR. The Macaulay Institute. Holmes, T., Scoones, I., 2000. Participatory environmental policy process. Experiences from North and South, Working Paper 113, Institute for Development Studies. Kallis, G., Videira, N., Antunes, P., Guimarães Pereira, A., Spash, C., Coccossis, H., Corral Quintana, S., del Moral, L., Hatzilacou, D., Lobo, G., Mexa, A., Paneque, P., Pedregal, B., Santos, R., 2006. Participatory methods for water resources planning and governance, environment and planning C. Government and Policy 24, 215–234. Kallis, G., 2007. Integrated evaluation in the water framework directive. In: Videira, N., Kallis, G., Antunes, P., Santos, R. (Eds.), Integrated Evaluation for Sustainable River Basin Governance. IWA Publishing, London. ISBN: 1843391481. Kallis, G., Hatzilacou, D., Mexa, A., Coccossis, H., Svoronou, E., 2007. Beyond the manual: practicing deliberative visioning in a Greek island. Ecological Economics. doi:10.1016/j. ecolecon.2007.07.002. Kallis, G., Videira, N., Antunes, P., Santos, R., contributors, 2007. Integrated deliberative decision processes for water resources planning and evaluation. A Guidance Document. IWA Publishing, London. Kashyap, A., 2004. Water governance: learning by developing adaptive capacity to incorporate climate variability and change. Water Science and Technology 49 (7), 141–146. EC O L O G IC A L E C O N O M IC S 6 8 ( 2 0 09 ) 93 1 –9 39 Manzungu, E., 2004. Water for all: improving water resource governance in Southern Africa, Gatekeeper Series No. 113. International Institute for Environment and Development. 1357-9258, London. Mostert, E., 2003. The European water framework directive and water management research. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 28, 523–527. Narasimhan, T.N., 2005. Water: science and society. Current Science 89 (5), 787–793. NWC — National Water Commission, 2007. Water reform in Australia. Australian Government, National Water Commission, Camberra. Pahl-Wostl, C., Tàbara, D., Bouwen, R., Craps, M., Dewulf, A., Mostert, E., Ridder, D., Taillieu, R., 2008. The importance of social learning and culture for sustainable water management. Ecological Economics 64 (3), 484–495. Paneque, P., Corral, S., del Moral, L., Guimarães, A., Pedregal, B., 2006. Participative Multi-criteria Analysis for the Evaluation of Water Governance Alternatives. A Case in the Costa del Sol (Málaga). Ecological Economics. doi:10.1016/j. ecolecon.2006.11.008. Renn, O., 2006. Participatory processes for designing environmental policies. Land Use Policy 23, 34–43. Rogers, P., Hall, A., 2003. Effective water governance. Global Water Partnership, Technical Advisory Committee Background Paper No 7. Global Water Partnership, Stockholm. Spash, C., Urama, K., Burton, R., Kenyon, W., Shannon, P., Hill, G., 2006. Motives Behind Willingness to Pay for Improving Biodiversity in a Water Ecosystem: Economics, Ethics and Social Psychology. Ecological Economics. doi:10.1016/j. ecolecon.2006.09.013. Turton, A., Hattingh, H., Maree, G., Roux, D., Claassen, M., Strydom, W. (Eds.), 2007. Governance as a Trialogue: 939 Government-Society-Science in Transition. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. UNESCO-WWAP, 2006. Water a shared responsibility. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris and Berghahn Books, New York. USEPA, 2006. 2006-2011 EPA Strategic Plan: Charting Our Course. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. Van Leeuwen, E., Dalhuisen, J., Vreeker, R., Nijkamp, P., 2002. The Grensmaas Project. Work Package 1 of project ADVISOR. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Vardon, M., Lenzen, M., Peevor, S., Creaser, M., 2007. Water accounting in Australia. Ecological Economics 61, 650–659. Vatn, A., 2008. An Institutional Analysis of Methods for Environmental Appraisal, unpublished manuscript, Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway. Videira, N., Lobo, G., Antunes, P., Santos, R., Guimarães Pereira, A., 2002. Alqueva multipurpose project. Work Package 1 of project ADVISOR. New University of Lisbon. Videira, N., Antunes, P., Santos, R., Lobo, G., 2006. Public and stakeholder participation in European water policy: a critical review of project evaluation processes. European Environment 16, 19–31. Videira, N., Kallis, G., Antunes, P., Santos, R. (Eds.), 2007. Integrated Evaluation for Sustainable River Basin Governance. IWA Publishing, London. ISBN: 1843391481. Videira, N., Antunes, P., Santos, R., 2008. Scoping river basin issues with participatory modeling: the Baixo Guadiana experience. Ecological Economics. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.11.008. Zografos, C., Howarth, R. (Eds.), 2008. Deliberative Ecological Economics. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.