Download all Technical Policy Briefing Notes in a single ... - Mediation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

DecisionSupport 8The network map of water administration officers was a hierarchical network structured in severalblocks of actors: administrations, water users (agrarian and non-agrarian uses), trade unions,scientific community and environmental organizations, with the administrations clustered in themiddle. The number of links is quite high, showing a strong relationship between actors (a ‘discoursecoalition’ (Turnpenny et al, 2005) with a ‘shared world view’ or Type 3 network where uncertainty canbe explicit, although it tends to be embedded in how the organization is structured and procedures inplace .The discussion revealed that to improvethese relationships, there would need tobe more willingness to solve problems,increased participation, resources tobackup compulsory environmentalregulations and improved connections.The group also provided information onchanges in the social-institutionalframework that could improve decisionmakingfor climate change adaptation.The network map of farmerrepresentatives (from irrigationcommunities and independents) was verydifferent, and was more fragmented with a lower number of connections and some disconnectedactors. They identified different groups and had different perceptions. This is a Type 1 type ofnetwork where individual action predominates. Adaptation was considered from a local andindependent perspective, with a diversity of approaches to uncertainty, and is highly constrained andmostly short-term in nature. The discussion on how to improve the system included an increase intrust, the exploration of synergies, and for key links to be improved. This reflects an ‘advocacycoalition’ with a shared worldview but where technical approaches differ (Turnpenny et al, 2005).A number of missing connectionswere also identified, as well as aneed for more capacity fordecision-making and action,training, implementation capacityand funding between the irrigationcommunities.Finally, the members ofenvironmental NGOs and climatechange officers designed ahomogeneous network, with noevident clusters. The number oflinks between actors is high, andnone of them is disconnected.This is a Type 2 egalitarian networkwhere everyone tends to be ‘likeminded’and the structure of theproblem is similar across the network. Uncertainty may not be explicit but reduced to tacitassumptions and reflected in cultural and group norms rather than a science-policy dialogue. Thegoals of the different actors reveal two important conflicting objectives in the network: conservationand development. The group suggested synergies by developing tools and strategies with co-benefitsfor both objectives, raising awareness about climate change and continuing to involve the media.10
Social Network AnalysisComparing the three networks, the groups identified two main groups of actors: water users andpolicy makers. However, there were important differences: the water users network had a bigemphasis on agricultural uses. All groups identified the multiple scales (local, regional, national,European) and different sector,but the farmers had a more partialview of the system with a lowernumber and less detailed actors.Only one group (the environmentalnetwork) identified the media asan actor.There are also differences in theflows across the three networks.Stakeholders from the wateradministration perceivedthemselves as the maininformation providers in theirnetwork, with a cascade fromregional and nationaladministration. Farmersperceived reciprocal flows (twowayarrows), but consideredenvironmental organizations andscientists as main informationproviders. The environmentalactors considered the maininformation provider was the EUfollowed by environmentalorganizations and universities, butvia different channels. Similarly,the maps reveal differences on thefinancial flows and implementation capacity between the groups. The strength and number ofconnections (lines) in the maps also show important differences. These also indicate the influences,though all groups consider the most influential actors were the EU, the national government and theregional government, together with irrigators. Finally, the groups all identify conflicting objectives ofconservation/environmental protection and development/economic benefits, though the differentgroups had different views on which should be prioritised.Overall, the exercise revealed important differences between the three networks. While the wateradministration was focused on a traditional top-down approach to decision-making, with a hierarchicalstructure to other actors, agricultural users (irrigators) had an individualistic view of the process. Theenvironment and climate change representatives had the most holistic approach and deepestunderstanding of the adaptation process, with highest representation of stakeholder groups in theirnetwork diagram. All agree on the influential actors and those with most influence for adaptation. Thefigure illustrates key omissions and connections (i.e. weak lines to improve). The mapping wasdiscussed by the stakeholders and used to highlight and find ways to overcome barriers.The workshops helped to increase awareness and brought attention to the current weakness of thesocio-institutional framework and areas to explore, as well as bringing the different groups together,helping to identify steps to improve linkages and information flows.
Page 2 and 3:
Key Messages• There is increasing
Page 4:
DecisionSupport 1Stage three relate
Page 7 and 8:
Method OverviewAs a result there is
Page 9 and 10:
Method OverviewThe advantage of the
Page 11 and 12:
Method OverviewTable 1. Strengths a
Page 13 and 14:
Iterative Risk AssessmentMethod Ove
Page 15 and 16:
Method OverviewTable 3. Inputs, Ben
Page 17 and 18:
Method OverviewThird, there some di
Page 19 and 20:
Method Overviewhttp://reports.eea.e
Page 22 and 23:
Further informationThe research lea
Page 24 and 25:
Key Messages• There is increasing
Page 26 and 27:
DecisionSupport 2Box 2. Comparing M
Page 28 and 29:
DecisionSupport 2Table 1. Possible
Page 30 and 31:
DecisionSupport 2location and techn
Page 32 and 33:
DecisionSupport 2Discussion and App
Page 34:
DecisionSupport 2ReferencesBoyd, R
Page 37 and 38:
Decision SupportMethods for Climate
Page 39 and 40:
Robust Decision MakingIntroductionT
Page 41 and 42:
Robust Decision Makingit more close
Page 43 and 44:
Robust Decision MakingCase Study 2:
Page 45 and 46:
Robust Decision MakingReferencesDes
Page 47 and 48:
Decision SupportMethods for Climate
Page 49 and 50:
Real Options AnalysisIntroductionTh
Page 51 and 52:
Real Options AnalysisBox 1: The Con
Page 53 and 54:
Real Options AnalysisStrengths and
Page 55 and 56: Real Options AnalysisCase Study 2:
Page 57 and 58: Real Options AnalysisDiscussion and
Page 60 and 61: Further informationThe research lea
Page 62 and 63: Key Messages• There is increasing
Page 64 and 65: DecisionSupport 5portfolios of two
Page 66 and 67: DecisionSupport 5Case Study 1: Fore
Page 68: DecisionSupport 5Discussion and App
Page 71 and 72: Decision SupportMethods for Climate
Page 73 and 74: Multi-Criteria AnalysisIntroduction
Page 75 and 76: Multi-Criteria AnalysisIn the imple
Page 77 and 78: Multi-Criteria AnalysisBox 1. MCA f
Page 79 and 80: Multi-Criteria AnalysisIn assessing
Page 81 and 82: Multi-Criteria Analysis3, 4 en 5),
Page 85 and 86: Analytic Hierarchy ProcessIntroduct
Page 87 and 88: Analytic Hierarchy ProcessThe AHP m
Page 89 and 90: Analytic Hierarchy ProcessThe resul
Page 91 and 92: Analytic Hierarchy Processwith an a
Page 93 and 94: Analytic Hierarchy ProcessRamanatha
Page 97 and 98: Social Network AnalysisIntroduction
Page 99 and 100: Social Network Analysistransfer, th
Page 101 and 102: Social Network Analysisadvantage of
Page 103 and 104: Social Network AnalysisBox 3. Netwo
Page 105: Social Network AnalysisThe overall
Page 109 and 110: Social Network AnalysisCash, D., Cl
Page 113 and 114: Adaptation Turning PointsIntroducti
Page 115 and 116: Adaptation Turning Pointsalso be ro
Page 117 and 118: Adaptation Turning PointsCase Studi
Page 119 and 120: Adaptation Turning PointsCase Study
Page 121 and 122: Adaptation Turning PointsDiscussion
Page 123 and 124: Adaptation Turning PointsLeary, D.
show all

Download all Technical Policy Briefing Notes in a single ... - Mediation

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?