Water governance in Alpine Valleys: using the past to understand the present

Beatrice Mosello PhD Political Science

Graduate Institute of International and

Development Studies, Geneva

Global Changes and the World s Mountains ,

Perth, Scotland, 26-30 September 2010

1) Introduction

2) Literature review

3) Research design

4) Methodology

5) Case studies

6) Results

Adaptive Capacity for Water Management in the Aosta and Ossola Valley

Climate and socio-economic changes will impact on

institutional structures for water management

Especially in mountain areas!

OBJECTIVE OF THE WORK:

Investigate the factors that define the capacity of

institutions for water management to adapt to climate-

related and socio-economic changes.

Focus on the local level of analysis: allows to further

explore solutions that communities/societies have taken

for managing shared water resources, also and especially

under conditions of stress.

Object of analysis: Institutional adaptive capacity of the

water sector in the mountains

Unit of analysis:

Institutions tasked with water resources management

functions in 4 economic sectors (agriculture, industry, tourism,

research)

Level of analysis:

LOCAL

(one region, one

province within the

Italian national context)

Shared

resource:

WATER

Case studies:

Aosta Valley Ossola Valley

Literature review 1. Global changes in the mountains

The effects of globalisation on mountain areas

(Castelein et al. 2006, Debarbieux and Price 2008, Regato and Rami 2008)

Processes of regionalisation leading to

the definition of “mountain regions”

(Paasi 2002, Fall and Egerer

2004, Del Baggio 2009, Rudaz

2009)

Collective action by mountain communities at

local, national and transnational levels

(Price 1999, Gerbaux 2004,

Granet-Abisset 2004, Finger-Stich

2010)

2. Managing water resources in the mountains

Mountain regions have a long

history of water management

practices (local communities!)

Collective management

schemes are possible and

should be encouraged

(Stevenson 1991, Ostrom

1990, Trawick 2008)

Collective property regimes

favour

cooperation

especially in

difficult natural

environments

(Debarbieux and

Price 2008)

Mountains are a

crucial source of knowledge for

examining the

dilemmas of

managing a

public good that

knows no

boundaries, and

can be diverted

and traded

(water)!

Challenging the view that water

management gives rise to a « tragedy of the commons » (Hardin 1968)

Water resources

as common pool

resources

3. Adaptive capacity in the mountains

Concept of

ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

The ability to recover

or adjust to change

through learning and

flexibility so as to

maintain or improve

into a desirable state

(Engle and Lemos

2010)

Focus on the

institutional dimension

What are the conditions that enhance the

institutional capacity to adapt?

(Engle 2007, Eakin and

Lemos 2006, Brooks et al.

2005, Haddad 2005, Ivey et

al. 2004, Adger 2001)

=

Increased

participation and

representation

Increased flows

of information

and knowledge

Social capital and

networks and

resource availability

1

2

3

Analytical framework

1. Literature review 2. Historical analysis

3 institutional conditions of adaptation =

INDEX OF INSTITUTIONAL

ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

1. Public participation in decision-making

processes (P)

2. Access to and availability of

information (I)

3. Access to and availability of resources

(experience, infrastructure, economic

resources) (R)

Reference to three periods:

1. « Agricultural phase »:

agriculture as a

predominant activity

2. « Industrial phase »:

Industrial revolution and

railways

3. Post-war period:

institutional reforms at

national and regional levels

+ development of tourism!

Survey A survey was conducted to assess the current

institutional capacity to adapt to socio-economic and climatic changes in

the two mountain areas under analysis.

Respondents were

selected from the following

economic sectors:

1.Agriculture

2.Industry

3.Tourism

4.Research

Economic sector

from which

respondents have

been selected

Ossola Valley Aosta Valley

Agriculture 7 7

Industry 7 5

Tourism 8 6

Research 2 2

TOT. 24 20

Tot. 44

respondents

8 Introductory questions

+ 1 conclusion

7 questions on R 7 questions on I

9 questions on P Tot. 32 questions

• For each indicator, respondents were asked to assign a grade from 1 to 5 reflecting: – the effective presence of

such conditions in their sector;

– the extent to which they supposedly contribute to building the adaptive capacity of the water management system to future changes, including climate change.

1 Bad

2 Sufficient

3 Modest

4 Good

5 Excellent

• The final grades were then summed up

General picture of the factors that may help mountain

communities to adapt to prospected socio-economic

and climatic modifications

Case studies

Aosta Valley Ossola Valley

Results – General Overview Agriculture Industry Tourism Other (research) General

P 2.93 3.00 3.09 3.38 3.10

I 3.13 3.28 3.21 3.75 3.34

R 2.70 2.92 2.50 2.30 2.61

Experience 3.33 2.71 3.23 2.56 2.96

Infrastructure 2.70 3.13 2.67 1.69 2.55

Economic resources 2.09 2.51 2.34 1.13 2.02

Conditions of adaptive capacity, according to the

rating given by respondents in the survey (Annex 1)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Agriculture Industry Tourism Other

(research)

General

P

I

R

Rating of the 3 components of the R condition

(resources)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

Agr

icultu

re

Indu

stry

Touris

m

Oth

er (r

esea

rch)

Gen

eral

Experience

Infrastructure

Economic resources

Results – Ossola Valley Agriculture Industry Tourism Other (research) General

P 2.97 3.04 2.88 4.25 3.29

I 3.07 3.25 3.16 3.88 3.34

R 2.63 2.78 2.76 2.29 3.31

Experience 3.25 2.86 3.22 4.00 3.31

Infrastructure 2.68 3.00 2.75 1.88 2.58

Economic resources 1.96 2.47 2.31 1.00 1.94

Conditions of adaptive capacity, according to the

rating given by respondents in the survey (Annex 1)

Ossola Valley

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Agriculture Industry Tourism Other

(research)

General

P

I

R

Rating of the 3 components of the R condition

(resources) - Ossola Valley

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Agr

icultu

re

Indu

stry

Touris

m

Oth

er (r

esea

rch)

Gen

eral

Experience

Infrastructure

Economic resources

Results – Aosta Valley Agriculture Industry Tourism Other (research) General

P 2.90 2.95 3.29 2.50 2.91

I 3.18 3.30 2.58 3.63 3.17

R 2.75 2.97 2.74 2.30 2.69

Experience 3.43 3.10 3.25 3.63 3.35

Infrastructure 2.72 3.25 2.58 2.00 2.64

Economic resources 2.11 2.55 2.38 1.25 2.07

Conditions of adaptive capacity, according to the

rating given by respondents in the survey (Annex 1)

Aosta Valley

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Agriculture Industry Tourism Other

(research)

General

P

I

R

Rating of the 3 components of the R condition

(resources) - Aosta Valley

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Agr

icultu

re

Indu

stry

Touris

m

Oth

er (r

esea

rch)

Gen

eral

Experience

Infrastructure

Economic resources

Discussion of results Indicator 1: Public participation

MODEST (3.10) institutional

condition for increasing adaptation

Higher in the Aosta Valley!

Highest for the research sector

Indicator 2: Information access and availability

MODEST (3.34) institutional

condition for increasing adaptation

Higher in the Ossola Valley!

Highest for the research sector

Indicator 3: Access to and availability of resources (experience, infrastructure, economic resources)

MODEST (2.61) institutional condition for increasing adaptation

Higher in the Ossola Valley!

Highest for the industry sector

Highest: experience (2.96)

Challenges • Very similar results between the two case areas:

bias in the survey?

• In both cases, very « weak » results (no indicator scored higher than 3 = modest): WHY?

Comparison across sectors? – which sector has

the least adaptive capacity, and why?

Comparison across institutional contexts: e.g.

replicate the survey in Canton du Valais, or

Kyrgyzstan

Solutions?

Conclusion

Mountains are not only passive victims but RESPOSITORIES OF INFORMATION on how to best adapt water governance

to global change

Through a survey, we

have assessed the

capacity of 3 institutional conditions to increase

adaptation in 2 mountain territories

(local level of analysis)

Focus on

CREATIVITY AND

EXPERIENCE!

THANK YOU FOR YOUR

ATTENTION!

Beatrice Mosello, PhD Candidate

Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Environmental Studies Unit

11 A Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva SWITZERLAND

E-mail: beatrice.mosello@graduateinstitute.ch