March/April 1997
|
|
March/April 1997 |
On October 16-17, 1996 the International Joint Commission sponsored an evaluation methodologies workshop to identify possible alternatives for assessing the trade-offs between competing interests in water resources management. These alternative methodologies were discussed for possible application to the activities of Commissions boards of control.
A number of the Commissions international boards of control (St. Croix River, Rainy Lake, St. Lawrence River and Lake Superior) are in the process of conducting reviews of operational procedures to evaluate responsiveness to the needs and aspirations of current stakeholders. Present procedures, and the associated Commission rules related to flow rates and lake levels, were mostly established some years ago with the interests of the key stakeholders of the time taken into account. Additional uses are now made of the water resources and both the stakeholders and the needs have changed. For example, rule curves or operational procedures may have been established when the major uses were for water transport, hydropower production, shoreline residents and industrial use. (Rule curves specify the allowable range of levels at each time of the year.) Increasingly, groups as diverse as wild rice harvesters, commercial and sports fisheries interests, cottagers, recreational boaters and wildlife enthusiasts are also sharing the resource and are affected by management decisions. The aquatic environment itself is also increasingly being recognized as a legitimate stakeholder and must be taken into account as well.
The ideal situation for individual stakeholders can seldom be realized in management decisions so it may be necessary to balance the interests of diverse groups. Balancing the interests of the same type of stakeholders within parts of the basin may be required. An example would be the concern of shoreline residents over high water levels created by a water control structure. Flooding above the structure can only be alleviated by high flow release rates that may flood shoreline residents downstream. It may also be necessary to balance the interests of groups such as fisheries managers, who want high spring levels for fish spawning, and cottage owners who are concerned about flooding on the same body of water.
Traditional approaches to balancing interests use economic criteria almost exclusively and may not reflect the value of the resource for other purposes. What is the value of access to a sports fishery, the peace of mind that comes from canoeing in a wilderness area, the value of protecting a critical ecosystem? All of the uses are important to us as individuals and decisionmakers and somehow must be weighed and considered, not only the more easily defined uses such as hydropower, shoreline development or navigation. Such balancing of the needs of very diverse stakeholders must be taken into account whenever recommendations for revised rule curves or operational procedures are made by a board of control to the Commission. At the same time, the boards must evaluate the mechanisms used for making management decisions, and incorporate the views of as many stakeholders as possible. In fact, it is probably more important to be able to reflect the needs of stakeholders before decisions are made, than to fully understand to the last dollar the economic ramifications that the decision will have. Feedback from stakeholders is also necessary so that the impact of operational decisions can be quantified and changes made in the future.
The workshop brought together representatives of the St. Croix, St. Lawrence and Rainy Lake Boards, Commission staff and invited experts. A casebook describing the methodologies to be discussed provided excellent background information. The approach taken at the Workshop was to present the experience of the participating boards in attempting to balance interests and an overview of alternative methodologies by experts. There was opportunity for questions, discussion, comments and feedback. The participants also broke into smaller groups to identify the key issues faced by Commission boards of control and to define common elements that might best be explored on a collaborative basis.
The eight methodologies presented in the casebook, and discussed at the workshop, included cost-benefit analysis, risk-benefit analysis, multi-criteria decision analysis, policy delphi analysis, environmental impact assessment, alternative dispute resolution, sustainability measurement and a multi-disciplinary approach to survey research. The names may be a mouthful, but the methodologies near the top of the list represent several detailed approaches to economic analysis, including recent advances that allow for a better measure of environmental and other benefits. The latter set of methodologies focus on definition of issues, methods for understanding longer-term impacts, gathering data and defining the interests of stakeholder groups. The methodologies must be regarded as a set of tools. No one is better than another, and several combined can provide a better insight into the environmental, social and economic consequences of a water resources management decision.
Interestingly, discussions at the workshop centered less on the methodologies themselves than on how to apply them and go about the business of actually balancing interests. Stakeholder participation and the associated themes of communication and education were seen as key components to any evaluation. In other words the way a decision is made, who makes that decision, who that decision impacts and in what way are all factors that must be considered and built into the evaluation process. The workshop participants also identified the need for the Commission to explore ways to help stakeholders and the public to better understand the issues and inform themselves. The alternative methodologies should be of interest to other boards, and the Commission was encouraged to share the casebook and workshop synopsis with other members of the Commission "family" of advisors.
For more information, contact workshop organizers Geoff Thornburn, International Joint Commission, 100 Metcalfe Street, 18th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario, K1P 5M1; telephone (613)995-2984; fax (613)993-5583; email thornburng@ijc.achilles.net; or contact Lisa Bourget, International Joint Commission, 1250 23rd Street NW, Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20440; telephone (202)736-9000; fax (202)736-9015; email bourgetl@ijc.achilles.net.
sommaire
Les 16 et 17 octobre 1996, la Commission a tenu un atelier dans le but détablir différentes méthodes permettant dévaluer les compromis entre les intérêts concurrentiels dans la gestion des ressources hydriques. Un certain nombre de conseils internationaux de contrôle de la Commission (rivière Ste-Croix, Saint-Laurent et lac Supérieur) sont en train dexaminer les procédures opérationnelles afin dévaluer la réponse aux besoins et aux aspirations des intervenants présents. Les procédures actuelles et les règles connexes de la CMI relativement aux débits et au niveau des lacs ont été établies il y a quelques années en tenant compte des intérêts des principaux intervenants du temps.
Les méthodes classiques employées pour équilibrer les intérêts font appel presque exclusivement à des critères économiques et peuvent ne pas refléter la valeur que cette ressource représente pour dautres fins. Quelle est la valeur de laccès à des sites de pêche sportive, de la tranquillité desprit que procure une randonnée en canot dans la nature, de la protection dun écosystème critique? À linstar des utilisations plus faciles à définir, comme lhydroélectricité, laménagement du littoral ou la navigation, toutes les utilisations sont importantes pour nous en tant quindividus et pour les décideurs, et il faut les pondérer et les prendre en considération. Il faut tenir compte dun tel équilibrage des besoins des divers intervenants toutes les fois quun conseil de contrôle recommande la révision de règles ou de procédures opérationnelles à la Commission.
Revised: April 14, 1997
Maintained by Kevin McGunagle,
mcgunaglek@ijc.wincom.net