rural water flow management new approaches 2015 · 2020-01-30 · rural water flow management how...
TRANSCRIPT
RURAL WATER FLOW MANAGEMENT
How to test and demonstrate
new approaches
Report of an international stakeholder workshop held on June 16th 2015
Kati Berninger Tyrsky Consulting Ltd.
2
Table of contents 1. Programme and participants ...................................................................................................................... 3 2. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 3. Connecting science and practice ............................................................................................................... 5 4. Approaches to co-‐operation between different stakeholders ...................................................... 8 5. Summary and future steps ........................................................................................................................ 11 ANNEX I Project opportunities within the theme water and agriculture ................................. 13
3
1. Programme and participants The international workshop organized by Kaj Granholm from the Swedish Agricultural University SLU took place on June 16th, 2015 in Jurmala Spa Hotel in Jurmala Latvia. Kati Berninger from Tyrsky Consulting Ltd. was responsible for workshop planning and facilitation. The workshop was a stakeholder activity under the new EUSBSR PA Bioeconomy flagship project FLOW Baltic, which aims at facilitating exchange and dialogue on holistic approaches to agricultural water management in the BSR. Material of the short presentations made during the workshop is available on the Internet: http://www.balticcompass.org/ Programme: 11.00-‐12.00 Lunch 12.00-‐12.30 Introduction 12.30-‐14.00 Connecting science and practice 14.00-‐14.30 Coffee 14.30-‐16.00 Approaches to cooperation between different stakeholders 16.00-‐16.30 How to get forward? Participants: 1. Ari Kultanen, ProAgria Finland 2. Lilia Karelova, Kaliningrad Institute for Re-‐training of Staff in Agrobusiness, Russia 3. Viktor Sergeev, Kaliningrad Institute for Re-‐training of Staff in Agrobusiness, Russia 4. Natalia Petrenko, Kaliningrad Institute for Re-‐training of Staff in Agrobusiness, Russia 5. Marek Gielczewsk, Warsaw University of Applied Sciences, Poland 6. Povilaitis Arvydas, Aleksandras Stulginskis University, Lithuania 7. Petra Korkiakoski, Tavastia University of Applied Sciences HAMK, Finland 8. Leena Anttila, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Finland 9. Edgars Paulovics, Zemgale Planning Region, Latvia 10. Maija Lehtimäki, City of Loviisa, Finland 11. Malgorzata Przychodzka, Institute of Technology and Life Sciences, Poland 12. Gintare Kucinskiene, Lithuanian Agricultural Advisory Service, Lithuania 13. Inga Berzina, Union Farmers' Parliament, Latvia 14. Ottilia Thoreson, WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme, Sweden 15. Maud Östman, City of Loviisa, Finland 16. Arturas Katinas, Lithuanian Agricultural Advisory Service, Lithuania 17. Kaj Granholm, SLU, Sweden/Finland 18. Kati Berninger, Tyrsky Consulting Ltd., Finland
4
2. Introduction The workshop aimed at merging needs and finding joint issues in order to increase co-‐operation on holistic rural water flow management. There is a need for new approaches that benefit both agriculture and local communities, and look at different scales from the field level to the catchment level. The two main topics of the workshop were firstly advancing applicability of research results as well as co-‐operation between researchers and practical actors and secondly identifying ways to integrate various interests and to work with different stakeholders at a local or regional level. In the beginning the participants were asked to consider where water flow management should be targeted (Figure 1). The majority of the participants regarded that we should target on measures on the fields. Many participants also consider that people are in the center of solutions and placed themselves in the village. Some participants also considered the catchment scale and holistic approach important.
Figure 1. Workshop participants were asked to place themselves on a landscape in a place where they think water flow management measures should be targeted.
5
3. Connecting science and practice As an introduction to the topic, Arvydas Povilaitis from Aleksandras Stulginskis University gave a presentation on agricultural drainage systems and water quality in Lithuania. Agricultural drainage is very common in Lithuania: about 83 % of the agricultural land is drained. Earlier shallow ditches have been converted to tile drainage, which has resulted in biodiversity losses. Drainage has increased crop yields especially during wet years, but it has also caused hydrological alterations downstream. Considerable amounts of nutrients are transported in drainage water. The climate change is causing an increased runoff during winter, which increases nutrient leaching. Drainage is a useful tool, but it should be optimized. Excess drainage is likely to carry away nitrate. There are several methods of conservation drainage that can be used to reduce nutrient transport from the drained land without affecting the drainage performance. Examples of these are controlled drainage, woodchip bioreactors and saturated riparian buffer strips. The research results that showed a positive effect of good drainage on crop yields especially during wet years were discussed. The changing climate and precipitation will increase the importance of optimizing the field water level in the future. Drainage should be planned in a wise and sustainable way. It is also important to increase water retention, not just maximise drainage efficiency.
Figure 2. Arvydas Povilaitis described the drainage situation in Lithuania. The participants were asked to write down the most important research topics related to water flow management. The proposed research topics were then discussed. The following topics came up during this work:
-‐ The current status of the drainage systems and polder lands
-‐ Flood risk and its relationship with agricultural drainage
6
-‐ Impact of flow alteration on abiotic and biotic conditions (ecosystems) -‐ Climate change impact on water flow elements, reliability of estimations -‐ Do we have ways to mitigate the drastic change caused by the climate change
(nutrient leaching)?
-‐ Connection between nutrient balance and nutrient runoff using different application rates
-‐ Effectiveness and cost-‐efficiency of different measures as well as their applicability to different conditions
-‐ Measures should be tested in different conditions and the results measured -‐ More information needed on the design and renovation of drainage systems -‐ Sociological survey on farmers attitudes of water protection measures
-‐ Transboundary studies, common assessment and standards
In addition to research we need to:
-‐ Involve all stakeholders, especially farmers -‐ Do knowledge exchange and training -‐ Simplify the bureaucracy
It also came up in the discussion that a lot of research has been done, but it is not applied on a larger scale. The next task focused on this issue. The participants worked in small groups and identified main barriers and challenges of putting research results into practice. They were also asked to suggest solutions for identified barriers or challenges.
Figure 3. Groups discussed barriers and challenges in putting research results into practice.
7
One of the most important barriers is lack of communication and understanding between different actors, especially between scientist and farmers. Scientists speak scientific language, and they report the research results primarily in English. Translation to common language and practical versions of study reports are needed. The work of advisory organizations may act as a bridge between science and farmers, but it is evident that more work is needed to bring scientific results into a practical level. One barrier is also in attitudes, motivation and openmindedness of both farmers and researchers. More and better opportunities for communication and knowledge sharing may change the attitudes. Even if good measures exist, farmers and landowners don’t always have sufficient information on effective measures. Advisory services play an important role in dissemination of information on various measures, and demonstration sites would be very useful in this work. Pioneer farmers that implement new measures and tell about their experiences to farmer colleagues are needed. Economic issues were also perceived as important barriers. Farmers will probably not act if there is no proven positive economic impact of the implementation of a measure or activity. This can be achieved by designing financing instruments to make measures economically attractive to farmers. Also project funding can be used especially for pilot or co-‐operation projects. Also availability of project funding, lack of co-‐financing and heavy application procedures were considered barriers. Other barriers identified were lack of young professionals in agriculture since agriculture is not considered an attractive professional career among young people, low political priority, and hindering legislation.
8
4. Approaches to co-‐operation between different stakeholders Two partners in NUTRINFLOW ICB project initiative presented their perspective on co-‐operation between local and regional authorities and farmers. First, Maud Östman and Maija Lehtomäki from the City of Loviisa in Finland presented their plan targeting the catchment area of River Loviisanjoki. On one hand, farmers have problems with flooding, and on the other hand the Loviisanlahti Bay, receiving waters from the Loviisanjoki, is very important for the local people and tourism. Their approach is to promote co-‐operation rather than confrontation, and the project will start by discussions between authorities, advisors and farmers. The idea is to find pioneer farmers to implement measures on their fields. Edgars Paulovics from the Zemgale Planning Region in Latvia presented their approach. The project partners in the region are:
-‐ Zemgale Planning region – regional authority -‐ Farmers’ Parliament – NGO -‐ Latvia University of agriculture – scientifical platform -‐ Jelgava local municipality – local authority -‐ Agricultural land managers
The project activities will be planned together using stakeholder dialogue meetings and workshops. Demonstration sites and methods will be selected according to dialogue results. Co-‐operation between different actors was discussed in groups using cards with different local and regional actors (farmers, advisors, NGOs, researchers, local governments), including empty cards. The groups were asked to select the most important actors and write new ones on empty cards if needed. They were asked to describe the situations when these actors meet. After that the groups discussed the following points:
-‐ How would you facilitate the discussion of water flow management in these situations?
-‐ How would you create more situations for dialogue? -‐ What are the barriers of dialogue?
9
Figure 4. Participants worked in groups in order to when and where different actors meet and how the discussion of water flow management could be facilitated. All groups added local people, business and national government/policy or decision makers as important actors in this dialogue. Some groups also added regional governments, EU policy makers as well as education and training. These groups are connected in various ways. The closest contact is between advisors and farmers: advisors offer their services directly to farmers. However, not all farmers use advisors. Farmers are in contact with local and regional authorities when they need permits for different activities and when they are applying for agricultural subsidies. There could be a more holistic approach in giving drainage permits and planning water construction projects. Farmers could also be more actively involved in planning processes like drafting general wetland plans for different watersheds. New ways for motivating participation are needed. Education and training for both advisors and farmers is one link between researchers and practical work. Advisors receive continuous training on new measures and methods. Farmers who have carried out university studies are better able to understand research results than their peers with no university background. On the other hand, scientists should come out to the field to show and tell about important issues. This kind of “field talks” may be organized on research farms or on the fields of an interested farmer. One way to facilitate dialogue is organizing meetings to find solutions to specific practical questions with different stakeholders. The information should be on a level all stakeholders can understand, and there is a clear need of interpretation and working on new materials for this purpose. A project designed to build up dialogue would help to boost cooperation at local or regional level. One group stated that a new type of farmers union could be the right platform for co-‐operation and dialogue. Fit should be modern and ready to try out new things and open
!"#$%#&'
(%&%"#)*%#&'
+,-.&/#&'
012&'
3/)"4'5/-%#6$%67&'
10
for dialogue with all actors. Farmers union reaches farmers and is also well connected to the national decision-‐makers. During the discussion an idea came up that the young farmers associations could be the right place to start since young farmers are more open to new ideas. The participants also discussed the involvement of the “general public” in the dialogue. There is a need for a closer understanding on where the food comes from and how farms work. Organizing farm excursions could be one way to increase this understanding.
11
5. Summary and future steps Summary In the changing climate conditions it is essential to implement measures to optimize field water level. Both efficient drainage and ways to retain water are needed. This also includes maintenance of soil structure. In addition to the field level, there should be a broader scope and a more holistic approach to water management. A broader scope also includes flood control of villages, roads, power stations etc. as well as larger scale measures of slowing down the water flow like meandering. Scientists need to step out of their comfort zones. There is some kind of a gap in how science results are being disseminated. The workshop participants identified several ways to improve putting research results into practice. Advisory service may be seen as a link between science and practice. Advisors help farmers to implement new measures. Pilot farmers, who are early adopters of new measures, are good examples for their fellow farmers. It is easier to learn from neighbors that can also tell about potential problems and speak the same language. Demonstration sites are useful both to test new measures and show a larger audience how they work. Scientists should directly involve farmers in research and conduct also practical on-‐farm research. This would facilitate the use of the practical knowledge farmers have on their work. Communication is the key to working together towards common goals. There should be co-‐operation instead of confrontation, and any common work starts with common discussions. It takes time to understand people with different backgrounds. We speak different languages, and special effort is needed for translating science into common language. It is important to engage all actors to a dialogue and plan activities together, but it is not clear whether funding organizations are ready to finance projects without clearly defined activities. There should be space for bottom-‐up projects, which at a first stage enhance dialogue, and only after there is common understanding start concrete field activities. The workshop participants consider international co-‐operation with sharing of examples and good practices as an important tool for advancing the implementation of efficient measures and dialogue between science and practice. Various EU programmes can be used in financing co-‐operation.
12
Future steps The collaboration around the topic will continue in the future. In order to facilitate it, a discussion group in LinkedIn will be established under FLOW Baltic to continue the dialogue. There can also be subgroups for example for planning of new projects. The next event will be organized in 2016 and hopefully there will be some projects running at that time. There are several opportunities for funding and building up partnerships. For example Cost, co-‐operation in science and technology is a rather light opportunity. If you are interested, please contact Kaj Granholm ([email protected]) or Dennis Collentine ([email protected]). The JPI “Water challenges for a changing world” will have a specific topic on water and agriculture in 2016. Annexed is a list of various funding opportunities.
13
ANNEX I Project opportunities within the theme water and agriculture Interreg in the Baltic Sea Region Interreg Baltic Sea Region, 2nd call, end of 2015: www.interreg-‐baltic.eu Interreg Central Baltic, 2nd call, 24 August-‐23 October 2015: http://www.centralbaltic.eu/ Interreg South Baltic, 1st call, Priority Axis 2: Attractiveness and Common Identity 2.1. Management of the Baltic Sea environment 2.4. Local community initiatives http://en.southbaltic.eu/ * COST Actions http://www.cost.eu/participate/open_call > for reference, contact Dennis Collentine, SLU: [email protected] * List of topics in the draft Work Programme for Horizon2020 SC2 and SC 5 SC2: Food security, sustainable agriculture and forestry, marine and maritime and inland water research and the bioeconomy Call for Sustainable Food Security – Resilient and resource-‐efficient value chains SFS-‐18. [2016] Framework Partnership Agreement supporting Joint Actions towards Public-‐Public Partnerships in the Bioeconomy SFS – 20. [2017]: Towards a science-‐based regionalisation of the Common Fisheries Policy SFS – 21. [2016-‐2017]: Advancing basic biological knowledge and improving management tools for commercially important fish and other seafood species SFS – 22. [2017]: Smart fisheries technologies for an efficient, compliant and environmentally friendly fishing sector SFS – 23. [2016]: Improving technical performance of the Mediterranean aquaculture SFS – 24. [2016]: Reinforcing international cooperation on sustainable aquaculture production with countries from South-‐East Asi
14
SFS – 49. [2016] Soil water resources management in the EU and China and its impact on agro-‐ecosystem functions Call for a Rural Renaissance -‐ Fostering innovation and business opportunities -‐ New approaches towards policies and governance RUR – 2. [2017] – Coastal-‐rural interactions: enhancing synergies between land and sea-‐based activities RUR – 3. [2017]: Towards 2030: policies and decision tools for an integrated management of natural resources RUR – 4. [2016]: WATER FARMS – Improving farming and supply of drinking water 28 SC5 'Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials' Contribution to cross-‐cutting call: "Industry 2020 in the Circular Economy" CIRC-‐2-‐2016/2017: Water in the context of the circular economy CIRC-‐2-‐2016: Demonstrating the potential of efficient nutrient recovery from water CIRC-‐2-‐2017: Towards the next generation of water systems and services– large scale demonstration projects Water SC5-‐13-‐2016: Supporting international cooperation activities on water SC5-‐14-‐2016 or 2017: Food systems and water resources for the development of inclusive, sustainable and healthy Euro-‐Mediterranean societies * More information available in autumn 2015 on flowbaltic.net
15