Advancing MAPs as vehicles for resolving drinking water pollution issues
|Main authors:||Frode Sundnes, Cors van den Brink, Morten Graversgaard|
|iSQAPERiS editor:||Jane Brandt|
|Source document:||»Sundnes, F et al. (2020) Advancing MAPs as vehicles for resolving issues on drinking water pollution from agriculture. FAIRWAY Project Deliverable 2.5R, 56 pp|
Results from this research task have also been published as scientific papers:
- »Nesheim I, Sundnes F, Enge C, Graversgaard M, van den Brink C, Farrow L, Glavan M, Hansen B, Leitão IA, Rowbottom J, Tendler L. Multi-Actor Platforms in the Water–Agriculture Nexus: Synergies and Long-Term Meaningful Engagement. Water. 2021; 13(22):3204
- »van den Brink, C.; Hoogendoorn, M.; Verloop, K.; de Vries, A.; Leendertse, P. Effectiveness of Voluntary Measures to Reduce Agricultural Impact on Groundwater as a Source for Drinking Water: Lessons Learned from Cases in the Dutch Provinces Overijssel and Noord-Brabant. Water 2021, 13, 3278
In this section of FAIRWAYiS we critically assess the multi-actor platform engagement processes in ten of FAIRWAY's case studies. We look at lessons learned and map opportunities and bottlenecks for meaningful engagement, shed light on challenges and how they have been addressed, and explore the future sustainability of the engagement platforms beyond the lifetime of the project.
Public participation and stakeholder involvement have long been considered central in policy and planning processes. FAIRWAY's MAPs are either engagement platforms that pre-existed the project and which have been brought in to contribute to the research themes, or they have been set up under the auspices of the project. We discuss the framework of dimensions we have used for analysis of meaningful engagement processes.
In 2019 all MAPs carried out either a survey or a set of interviews to provide input to the FAIRWAY's MAP analyses. The aim of this exercise was to get feedback from MAP participants on the performance and functioning of the MAPs, and to enable the harvesting of lessons and best practice.
»Case-wise methods for analyses of multi-actor platforms
Issues of trust between participants and actors is flagged as a cross-cutting issue, relating to all other dimensions of engagement, requiring facilitation and long-term commitment. Across the project, the MAPs seem successful in creating arenas for dialogue and exchange of information and viewpoints. However, three years into the project many of the MAPs are still short of seeing real impact of the processes in terms of reaching established goals. There is evidence from some MAPs that the lack of impact might jeopardise the engagement processes, creating disappointment or fatigue on the part of the participating actors. It is reported that building relationships and fostering good relations and common understanding requires long-term commitment and takes time. When coupled with awareness-raising amongst key actors, it also takes time for change to take place, for instance the changing farming practices. Voluntariness in terms of implementation of measures is considered something that can help in the trust-building process, but that also constitutes a barrier for effective implementation. There are also apparent differences in perspectives within the MAPs, on whether the facilitation of dialogues is to be considered a success-factor in itself, or whether success only can be determined when there are real impacts with reference to set goals.
»Analysis and discussion