Concepts and methods for analysing the role of Information and Communication tools (IC-tools) in Social Learning processes for River Basin Management

Abstract

International audienceThe Water Framework Directive requires Public Participation in River Basin Management (RBM), including previously excluded constituencies besides water experts and policy makers. In this context, the HarmoniCOP project studies ways to improve PP based on the concept of Social Learning (SL). SL refers to the growing capacity of a social network to develop and perform collective actions. Complex issues such as RBM can be better resolved taking into account the diversity of interests and mental frames, and relying on disseminated information and knowledge. Information and Communication tools (IC-tools) can thereby play an important role. In this paper we firstly present our main concepts in relation to SL and PP. Then we propose a provisional qualitative characterisation of the role of IC-tools. Thirdly, we present a framework of analysis to explore IC-tool impact on participatory and SL processes. This framework is used to assess the IC-tools from three perspectives: their technical characteristics, their impact on PP and SL and their usability as perceived by the users. In the fourth part we present a first application of the framework of analysis for two case studies in Flanders and in Dordogne (France). Finally, we discuss some expected future outcomes of the project

Supporting the Shift from State Water to Community Water: Lessons from a Social Learning Approach to Designing Joint Irrigation Projects in Morocco

“…1). It relied on advances in concepts of social psychology such as Kurt Lewin's change theory (Schein 1995), the self-efficacy concept (Bandura 1997), and concepts proposed by political scientists such as the social learning notion (Maurel et al 2007). It focused both on the knowledge that the farmers gained about the irrigation technique and how to manage the system and on how they planned to mobilize this knowledge to undertake concrete individual or collective action (Douthwaite et al 2007).…”

“…These tools are seen as complementary in the way they provide information and enable the generation of knowledge during the process of developing solutions (B. Bluemling, M. Dionnet, M. Kuper, P. Garin, A. Hammani, and A. Eliamani, unpublished manuscript). They not only facilitate individual learning as an "iterative process of action and reflection" (Hagmann 1999) but also promote social learning as "the growing capacity of a multiple stakeholders' network to develop and perform collective actions" (Maurel et al 2007). These tools are designed to favor exchange and dialogue on whether or not to engage in a modernization project and, if need be, on how to design such a project.…”

Harmonised Principles for Public Participation in Quality Assurance of Integrated Water Resources Modelling

“…This means that there is an opportunity for enhancement of MoST for the purpose of higher order public participation, such as active involvement and engagement of stakeholders, in the modelling process, in order to allow interaction between stakeholders through two-way communication and for supporting not only the complex technical task of constructing the model, but also as a tool supporting socialrelational activities (Maurel et al 2007). Traditionally, typical tools for engagement and social-relational activities are based on brainstorming, citizens' jury, group model building, role playing games, reframing workshop and Bayesian networks (Ridder et al 2005).…”

“…However, higher levels of public participation like engagement or co-decision making (Pahl-Wostl and Hare 2004;Maurel et al 2007;Ridder et al 2005;Tippett et al 2005) could be of relevance since the Water Framework Directive (WFD) encourages Member States to such processes e.g. engagement of all interested parties as part of the implementation of the Directive, engaging stakeholders and the public in planning or co-decision making that impact their livelihoods or environment (Maurel et al 2007).…”

“…engagement of all interested parties as part of the implementation of the Directive, engaging stakeholders and the public in planning or co-decision making that impact their livelihoods or environment (Maurel et al 2007). When successful, such higher order participation like engagement can create trust, social learning, novel working relationships across society, contribute to new learning etc., which also support the need of integrating research, policy and local experience and practice (Brugnach et al 2007;Innes and Booher 1999a, b).…”