Introduction There is a growing policy emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders and the public in water resource planning and decisionmaking (Global Water Partnership, 2000). In Europe, participation in water resource planning gained a new institutional stature with the Water Framework Directive (WFD). This calls for the``active involvement'' of all interested parties in the implementation process and particularly in the production, revision, and updating of River Basin Management Plans (Article 14; Council of the European Communities, 2000). Planning methods that combine public participation with decisionmaking functions are therefore increasingly in demand (Commission of the European Communities, 2002).

Abstract:Major hydraulic projects have a long tradition in Spain and must be contextualised within the framework of the so-called "hydraulic paradigm", according to which demand must be met with a sustained increase in supply. These large projects, which include but are not limited to the construction of large reservoirs, share a series of characteristics: their implementation relies on state economic and ideological support, their socioeconomic impact tends to be overestimated, their cost tends to be underestimated, they are presented as politically neutral, and they are the source of socio-environmental conflict. In order to gain a better understanding of this, we analyse the conflict generated by the dredging of the Guadalquivir River (Proyecto de Mejora de Accesos Marítimos al Puerto de Sevilla-MAM), a project aimed at improving navigability and access to the harbour of Seville (Spain). This project has highlighted the tensions underlying decision-making processes which pitch hegemonic policy makers against the rest of the stakeholders, as well as the lack of integrative and adaptive perspectives, institutional transparency and effective participation of all stakeholders in hydraulic policies.

Abstract:The ongoing debate on water policies in Spain is characterised by a traditional paradigm, dominated by the intervention on hydrological systems through the construction and management of infrastructure, which is progressively being abandoned but is currently still strong while the emergence of new management approaches. Climate change and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) are, in addition, the background to increasing challenges to traditional perspectives on drought, and important steps have been taken towards their replacement. This work analyzes the evolution of the normative structure and management models to identify recent shifts. The analysis is based on a fundamental conceptual change that places drought in the framework of risk, rather than that of crisis. I argue for the need to advance new prevention policies that can finally overcome productivist inertia and undertake essential tasks such as reallocating water flows, revising and controlling the water-concession system, and reinforcing and guaranteeing public participation.

No abstract