Here is a crazy question. In order to better manage our catchments should we ban all conversation about water?
Why would we do that? Because it is just possible that our focus on managing water is getting in the way of doing what it takes to improve water outcomes in our catchments.
My inspiration for this crazy idea comes from a long-term client, who is a manager in the public sector, responsible for regional water-quality improvements in wetlands, rivers and ecosystems. She said to me recently:
“I have always said that managing water is about managing people and managing relationships”.
By this logic, to manage the water in a system we must manage the people in that system. Yet when I watch my clients grapple with issues such as catchment planning, most of the conversation is about how we use water. Maybe that’s part of the problem?
What if, instead of talking about nutrients, pollution, entitlements, regulations, soil and so-on, we talked about communication, relationships, learning, sharing, understanding other perspectives, challenging assumptions, our fears, hopes and dreams? What if we talked about how we experience each other as neighbours, competitors for resources, fellow-users? What if we focussed on how we can best collaborate to learn and experiment together?
What if we didn’t talk about water at all, but instead talked about us, the people of the catchment? Would that make a difference to the outcomes we achieve?
It is simply not that easy. there is a great deal that needs to be discussed about the water and the natural environment. I think your idea leads back to the concept that the people control nature. That is simply not true. We are a part of the system but we are not the lords over the system. We may be the plague upon the system but there are many things that effect the overall system over which we have little control. For example the system has soils, forests, animals, forest fires, floods, etc. We need to discuss the natural components of the system. We are just one part of that system and we are not the end all be all.
Thanks Jeffrey. Agreed we are not Lords over the system yet catchment management is about the decisions we make. We must be Lords over those? Is how we manage catchments ultimately about how we – people – behave?
Yes. Relationships are the ecosystem of solutions. But one must remember that these connections are vital not only for connecting catchment users but also for finding that optimal nexus of expertise for IWRM. But deep collaboration is still the foundation of sustainability.
I think one would benefit from adding SOME of what you discuss, but not to the exclusion of the important watershed protection, flow management, water rights, and water quality issues. In my experience “stake holders” can be the death of natural resource planning. At some point, someone has to just get down to business and make progress!
I agree with you Earl. Managing catchments is probably an AND conversation – both technical and about people. I tend to see us focussing more on the technical, so I’m suggesting let’s focus on the people, how we think and how we behave in relation to our catchments.
Ofcourse one should address water management issues bases on integral paradigma: tecniical, socoial, Economic, scientofic. Therefore a paradigma shift away from disciplinary aproaches is imperative as it is for landscape management and restoration more in general
I think that is an important suggestion, since the basis of the problem is the way in which people use and manage these resources, and it is very necessary to enter deeply into the analysis agreed by all possible parties, of all that is desired of the basins. In this way, you can find comprehensive solutions that satisfy most of those involved, and at the same time allow you to sensitize and educate, through dialogue and listening, in the immense value of these natural resources, and in what are the problems to solve. Through this process, it is possible to facilitate working with a wide range of topics that are involved in the project, which are actually generating conflicts and that technicians do not usually observe because their look is different. And by relating them properly, we arrive at solutions that are convenient for all parties, which makes the application of the general project more functional. In general, in all landscape and resource management projects, it is necessary to complement the listening and dialogue with all the parties involved, without forgetting all the technical and scientific and even artistic part.
To the extent that ‘we are right and they are idiots’, the answer is yes. Coming at the ‘problem’ from a technical perspective always makes the answers to the problem look simple – check out the Cynefin framework to see where that gets you! Water management, like all NRM, is actually a complex people-based system, and all the changes are made by people interacting.
Hi David, I’ve just belatedly noticed your comment in our system. My apologies for not approving it earlier. I have to acknowledge your mention of Cynefin. We refer to that framework all the time and find it invaluable. I commend it to people.