Final Paper - Retallack

8/2/2019 Final Paper - Retallack

1/28

IMPROVED WATER RESOURCES GOVERNANCE IN

THE OTTAWA RIVER WATERSHED:APERSPECTIVE

ON DAM MANAGEMENT

PADM 5116 Final Paper

December 1, 2011

Matthew Retallack

ID # 100863468


2/28

Table of Contents

1.0 INTRODUCTION 2

2.0 HISTORICAL TRANSECT 3

2.1 Dams and Environmental Flow 3

2.2 History of Governance and Intervention 4

2.3 Evolution of an Integrated Approach to Water Management 6

3.0 FRAMEWORKS FOR INSTITUTIONAL REFORM 8

3.1 Institutional Factors 9

3.2 Cooperation, Collaboration and Adaptive Management 11

3.3 Participation and the Public 14

4.0 ANALYSIS 15

4.1 Case Studies 16

4.2 Analysis of the Ottawa River Watershed 19

4.3 Recommendations 22

5.0 CONCLUSIONS 23

REFERENCES 24


3/28

2

1.0 Introduction

The Ottawa River is the largest tributary to the St. Lawrence River. One and a half

million people live within its watershed and along its shores. For most of its length it acts

as a political border between Ontario and Quebec; between French and English Canada.

It has a diverse and varied economy and large urban and rural populations. Accordingly

there exist a wide range of interests in the Ottawa River watershed and a corresponding

set of expectations from the resource.

Water levels in the Ottawa River are controlled by dozens of dams and these levels are

optimised for flood control and generation of hydroelectricity. These management

objectives are supported by interjurisdictional cooperation through the Ottawa River

Regulation Planning Board. However many other social, economic and environmental

objectives are not being addressed in a similarly coordinated way and may be negatively

impacted as a result. This gives rise to concerns regarding the sustainability of water

resources management in the Ottawa River Basin. To address these concerns the central

question for this paper is how can the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board better

respond to the range of interests and, perhaps drawing on existing water governance

infrastructure, broaden the range of socio-economic and environmental benefits that are

realised through more effective dam management?

To understand the current conditions in the river it is necessary to look back and follow

the historical progression of human activities in the Ottawa River Basin. Commercial and

industrial activities alongside expanded settlement patterns are the result of a series of

often uncoordinated decisions being made at all levels of government (Harvey, 1979).

These decisions, made in the context of societal norms and scientific understanding of

their time, define conditions along the Ottawa River as we know them today

(Benidickson, 2010). As a result of these decisions we have a legacy of both settlement

and hard infrastructure, and governance in terms of institutions and approaches. The

nature of governance in the basin provides insight into the opportunities and constraints

for improved approaches to the management of levels and flows, as affect the broader


4/28

3

array of socio-economic and environmental interests. Weaving together an understanding

of where we are and how we have arrived at this place with current theory and empirical

case study evidence, it will be possible to offer contextualised and well founded

recommendations for next steps. Accordingly the objectives of this study are threefold:

1. Briefly outline the history of development in the Ottawa River basin. Relatedgovernance factors will be discussed alongside broader historical trends in water

resources governance. This contextualised understanding of governance in the

basin will be used as a basis for analysis.

2. Undertake an analysis and discussion of policy opportunities and challenges forimproved water governance in the basin drawing on current theory and empirical

evidence. This analysis will be focussed on the management of water levels and

flows as affected by the Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board and related

legislation.

3. Based on this analysis a set of policy recommendations will be presentedalongside a gap analysis identifying questions for future consideration.

2.0 Historical Transect

2.1 Dams and Environmental Flow

Dams have long been used to meet human needs for water. Primary functions could

include the provision of water for municipal, agricultural or industrial use, control of

water levels and flood risk management, provision of recreational opportunities, or some

combination of these objectives. However dams are also known to have undesirable

ecological and socio-economic consequences. By altering natural variation in water

levels dams impact wetlands, habitat and reproductive patterns (Richter et al, 2003). They

also impede or in some cases arrest fish passage, with associated ecological effects

(Haxton & Chubbuck, 2002). Dams can impact First Nations cultural rights, affect

shoreline property values and quality of life, or in extreme cases result in forced

relocation. In many parts of the world these issues have led to an overall reduction in

large dam development; however, increasing support for green energy may renew interest


5/28

4

in harnessing hydroelectric power (Brusey et al, 2009). At the same time growing

concerns over loss of biodiversity and related environmental issues, as well as increased

visibility and sensitivity around social and cultural impacts, challenge new and existing

hydroelectric projects, and will have to be addressed in new and substantive way

(Cushing, 2002).

In the Ottawa River dams have blocked migration route for species such as American

shad and eels, flooded habitat and changed traditional spawning grounds (Haxton &

Chubbuck, 2002). Modification of water quality parameters including temperature,

nutrient levels and dissolved oxygen have further impacted habitat as have rapid

fluctuations of water, which can cause physiological stress and upset spawning cycles

(Ottawa Riverkeeper, 2006). The construction of dams and subsequent creation of large

reservoirs have flooded land identified by the Algonquin First Nation as traditional

territory (Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, 2011) and large fluctuations are known

to affect shorelines and recreational opportunities.

2.2 History of Governance and Intervention

The story of industrial activity and institutional response stretches back into the

nineteenth century. The logging industry found vast resources within the Ottawa River

watershed however control structures were needed to moderate flows in the river in order

to reliably move these resources to production and further on to market. This resulted in

the construction of low dams and timber slides (Harvey, 1979; Haxton & Chubbuck,

2002). Lumber mills were built to process the wood and these drew on the river as a

source of power. They also disposed of large quantities of sawdust and other waste

materials directly in the river. In an early example of ecosystems thinking Dr. E. Van

Cortlandt, Ottawas officer of health in the late 1800s, observed these materials to be

negatively impacting spawning grounds, navigation and public health. However it was

navigation concerns that prompted Ottawa to develop federal legislation in 1867

prohibiting the disposal of mill waste in navigable waters. In 1886 this legislation was

strengthened based on concern for fisheries, although due to the economic importance of


6/28

5

the logging industry mill owners were able to get exemptions. These exemptions were

ultimately done away with in 1894 (Benidickson, 2010).

With the dawn of the twentieth century lumber interests expanded into pulp and paper.

This brought a new set of water quality concerns in addition to an increased demand for

energy and the beginnings of large scale development of hydroelectric infrastructure.

Seasonal flow variability combined with expanding downstream settlement gave rise to

an increased need for flood control, providing additional impetus for dam construction

(Harvey, 1979; Benidickson, 2010), with dams eventually being built and operated by the

federal government as well as private sector interests from Ontario and Quebec.

The interests of hydropower generation and flood control however are not perfectly

aligned. In order to buffer peak flows associated with spring melt waters, large amounts

of water need to be released from principle reservoirs in the upper reaches of the Ottawa

River (Haxton & Chubbuck, 2002). This equates to a loss of revenue from the generation

of hydroelectricity, giving owner operators an incentive to maintain reservoir levels. In

1962 the federal government along with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec established

the Ottawa River Engineering Board provide hydrological information to users and

enable better coordination of infrastructure. Nonetheless in 1974 and 1976 spring

flooding resulted in $10 million of compensation being paid by various levels of

government to residents in the Ottawa River basin, with another $21.5 million in

compensation being paid to residents in the Montreal area. In 1977 the Ottawa River

Regulation Planning Committee was established to address the situation. Their mandate

was to coordinate the regulation of levels and flows in the Ottawa River taking into

account hydropower production, flood protection, navigation, low water problems, water

quality needs and recreation (Harvey, 1979). Their chief recommendation was that

ongoing coordination of dam operations was required.

In 1983 the Federal government and the governments of Quebec and Ontario signed An

Agreement Respecting Ottawa River Basin Regulation. The Ottawa River Regulation

Planning Board was prescribed by this agreement and given the mandate to provide flood


7/28

6

control while meeting the interests of various users, particularly hydroelectric power

generation. The Board consists of one member each from the Federal Departments of

Environment, Public Works, and Transport; Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources;

Quebec Ministry of the Environment; Ontario Hydro and Hydro Quebec.

2.3 Evolution of an Integrated Approach to Water Management

Over the years society has internalised the insights of people like Dr.van Cortlandt and

come to understand that water management is complex. It provides or enables a multitude

of goods and services upon which we depend, while at the same time our actions can

impact or undermine the ecological systems that provide these services (Limburg et al,

2002; Fisher et al, 2008). This has given rise to an appreciation for the need to manage

water resources in a more holistic and integrated way.

While the literature does offer examples of early approaches to water management that

resemble aspects of what we currently call an integrated approach, the first modern

institutions to embody Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) principles were

Spains Confederaciones hidrogrficas, or Water Boards. Established by Royal Decree in

1926 these boards were tasked with managing public water resources on a watershed

basis. Shortly thereafter in the 1940s development of the Tennessee River Basin was

guided by an integrated approach to water resources planning. Then Chairman of the

Tennessee Valley Authority, David Lilienthal, noted that, the resources of the river were

not only to be envisioned in their entirety, they were to be developed in that unity

the waters, the land, and the forests together (Bandaragoda, 2010). Also in the 1940s we

have the emergence of Conservation Authorities in Ontario. According to Conservation

Ontario (2011), the central body for Ontarios network of non-profit Conservation

Authorities, Ontario passed the Conservation Authorities Act in 1946 in response to

concerns from agricultural, conservation and recreational interests that poor management

of land, water and forests were resulting in a depletion of natural resources and associated

effects such as soil loss and flooding. This legislation encouraged neighbouring

watershed municipalities to jointly create Conservation Authorities to provide integrated


8/28

7

management of natural resources within the watershed. In the 1960s and 1970s

responsibility for water management in England and Wales was increasing being shifted

from local governments to river basin water management authorities (Watson, 2010), and

a multi-disciplinary approach was used to develop an integrated water management plan

in Germany.

By 1977 there was growing momentum behind an integrated watershed-based approach

to water management when at a United Nations conference the IWRM approach was

recommended as a means to coordinate competition for water between multiple users

(Bandaragoda, 2010). Following this recommendation IWRM began to be formalised in

the international arena. From the Dublin Statement (1992) four guiding principles were

established:

Principle 1: Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain

life, development and the environment

Principle 2: Water development and management should be based on a

participatory approach, involving users, planners and policy-makers at all levels

Principle 3: Women play a central part in the provision, management and

safeguarding of water

Principle 4: Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be

recognised as an economic good

This Statement was commended by world leaders at the United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro later that same year, with

conference participants recommending governments study the report and find ways to

translate it into action. Focussed more broadly on sustainable development, Agenda 21

(1992), UNCEDs primary output, identified the following three key objectives for

IWRM:

1. Priority should be given to meeting basic human needs and safeguardingecosystem.


9/28

8

2. It should be carried at the level of the catchment basin or sub-basin, and should:a. use interactive and iterative multi-sectoral approaches that integrate

technological, socio-economic, environmental and human health

considerations;

b. be based community needs and priorities within the framework of nationaleconomic development policy;

c. be efficient and equitable with fully inclusive public participation in policymaking and decision making; and,

d. have institutional capacity for water policy to support sustainabledevelopment.

3. Targeted national action and sustainable resource use programmes should beprepared.

With these developments the concept of IWRM had become nuanced with its tenets

broadly accepted as defining the standard for appropriate, progressive management of

water resources. While there was still considerable room for further definition and

refinement through research and application, generally speaking key features were now in

place. Water was understood to be an essential resource supporting a number of social,

economic and environmental objectives. Accordingly effective water management

needed to coordinate multiple uses and be based on local needs and information. Decision

making should involve participatory processes that were inclusive of all sectors, the

general public, and were carried within the context of the watershed.

3.0 Frameworks for Institutional Reform

Implicit in IWRM is the recognition that water management is an inherently local

undertaking. While every application would take into account hydrology and

hydrogeology, demographics, socio-economics and water governance structure

(Bandaragoda, 2010), this would be done relative to local conditions and interests such

that what works in one situation would not necessarily work somewhere else. The open

nature of IWRM principles have resulted in a wide range of what could effectively be


10/28

9

considered experimental application. These have produced partial successes, some

failures and many lessons learned. Taken together this resulted in a depth of literature and

new knowledge that refined and deepened our understanding of the mechanisms and

constraints of an integrated watershed approach to water resource management. Upstream

users were often found to have different interests from downstream users (Nelson &

Weschler, 1998), with scale becoming another important factor. Watersheds provide

ecological goods and services at scales ranging from the very local, such as spiritual and

cultural value associated with a specific place, to the entire watershed, for instance

integrated hydroelectric development of the Ottawa River. This has implications for

identification of interested stakeholders and appropriate level of institutional intervention

(Hein et al, 2006). Allocation of water towards one purpose often results in less being

available elsewhere, thereby creating a situation where decision makers are constantly

required to weight interests against one another. The manner and processes through

which tradeoffs are informed are exceedingly complex, involving stakeholders from all

sectors and the general public, a range of consultation techniques, modelling approaches

and numerous frameworks (Farber et al 2002; de Groot et al, 2002). From an ecological

perspective it is essential to respect critical thresholds and the ongoing delivery of

supporting services and primary ecological functions. For many IWRM was seen as a

surrogate for ecosystem management, and should incorporate ecosystem approaches

(Bandaragoda, 2010).

3.1 Institutional Factors

Managing water in an integrated manner using watersheds as an operational unit places

new demands on existing institutions. Coordinated decision making requires that

information be shared horizontally between different departments and decision making

groups, as well as vertically between levels of government. Furthermore, since watershed

boundaries generally do not coincide with political boundaries, there will be multiple

governments at the same level within a given watershed. For example line departments

from the provincial governments of Quebec and Ontario share decision making within the

Ottawa River watershed. At the municipal level the governments of Ottawa, Gatineau and


11/28

10

many other communities make decisions that affect water resources in the basin.

Coordinating management will require governments to develop processes to integrate

existing planning processes within and between neighbouring jurisdictions and levels of

government (Pollution Probe, 2006). Additional adjustments are required to make

decision making accessible to interested and relevant stakeholders. This amounts to a

substantial shift in institutional operations, and raises a number of issues.

Chief among these are institutional readiness. From a review of the literature on

interjurisdictional and intersectoral cooperation Nelson & Weschler (1998) developed the

following list of four indicators that may provide a measure of institutional readiness:

1. level of citizen and community interest and involvement2. degree to which existing institutions are available for regional governance3. degree of informal or formal practical collaborative experience4. knowledge of missions, goals and objectives of other organisations and partners

To facilitate a comparison of institutional arrangements between river basins Blomquist

et al (2005) began by characterising successful river basin management as being

predicated by the devolution of authority to basin level and sub-basin level organisations;

the degree to which stakeholders become involved and stay engaged; an enabling legal

framework; and a level of economic resources. They suggest these conditions may be

measured using a framework built around these four variables, which appear to be

generally consistent with and complimentary to the findings of Nelson & Weschler

(1998) First there are contextual factors. These include socio-cultural and economic

factors that affect the incentive of basin stakeholders to participate, as well as the

experience and capacity of local institutions to engage with the process. Secondly, the

characteristics of the decentralisation process matter. For instance if the process was

driven from the top-down and imposed on basin stakeholders, or if it is borne of mutual

interest. Integrated management processes should take into account existing and familiar

governance institutions at the basin level, for instance working with First Nations

governance processes and leadership, and there should be ongoing support from higher

levels of government to allow changes time to take effect. The final two key variables are

the nature of relationships between government and basin-level organisations, and among


12/28

11

basin-level organisations. Relevant factors include issues such as the actual (genuine)

extent of decentralisation, financial resources and autonomy, capacity to create and

modify institutional arrangements, nature of water rights, opportunities for information

sharing and communication, as well as the ability to adapt to change.

Adapting to change is of central importance to water and watershed management,

particularly given the predicted effects of climate change. Increases in temperature will

affect water quality parameters as well evapotranspiration. These factors coupled with a

predicted increase in frequency and intensity of rainfall events, as well as frequency and

severity of drought events (Mortsch et al, 2000), create a situation where management

systems will increasingly need to be more flexible and responsive.

3.2 Cooperation, Collaboration and Adaptive Management

The assumption has been that coordination alone could achieve the objectives of

integrated watershed-based resource management without any fundamental reforms of

institutional arrangements. However following a review of the literature, Watson (2010)

found that aspirations have fallen short of operational achievements. Coordination of

multiple existing agencies requires the development of new procedures and new rules to

organise the necessary resources and ensure that activities proceed in an agreed upon

manner. This implies a rule-based structure which will inherently be somewhat rigid.

The traditional view that watersheds are fairly stable, quasi-closed ecological systems is

at best a convenient approximation of reality. It is more factual to understand watersheds

as complex, non-linear, even chaotic socio-environmental systems that give rise to

wicked or messy management problems characterised by complexity, change,

uncertainty and conflict (Watson, 2010). In this context coordination that results in rigid,

rule-based systems would seem incongruent with problems that demand flexible and

dynamic response mechanisms. Adaptive management is increasingly seen as offering a

more dynamic approach. Flexible, experimental and self-organising, the adaptive


13/28

12

management approach is both a tool to manage socio-economic environmental watershed

systems as well as to learn from it (Engle et al, 2011).

However the adaptive management approach relies on adaptive capacity and this is not

something that is easily measured in an accurate way. Alongside general categories such

as economic resources, technology and infrastructure, we know institutional and

governance aspects are key, but it is only possible to measure the effectiveness or level of

adaptive capacity relative to performance during a crisis. In a recent study exploring the

relationship between governance and adaptive capacity in Brazil Engle et al (2010)

developed an index consisting of nine indicators to help assess a priori the level of

governance and institutional adaptive capacity.

Brazil recently implemented a decentralised water management system where watersheds

were taken as the operational unit and stakeholder-driven basin councils were created.

Where adaptive capacity may be measured as the ability of system to respond effectively

to unforeseen shocks, Engle et al (2010) theorised that adaptive capacity increased with

representativeness of basin organisations; participation; use of scientific knowledge and

information; equality and access to decision making and to technical knowledge;

commitment; networks and connectivity between groups and stakeholders; experience;

and financial and human capital. They found that higher levels of representation and

participation contributed to a flexible and dynamic water management structure typical of

adaptive management and were able to produce more effective responses to floods and

droughts. Conversely in another study location low levels of participation and reliance on

heavy infrastructure combined with a more centralised management approach were found

to result in a more rigid governance system that was less able to adapt to climate

variability. Overall the authors concluded that there were some correlations between their

indicators and demonstrated levels of adaptive capacity however finer calibration was

needed.

Watson (2010) points to a growing literature that argues success may rest with the

development of collaborative capital. Collaboration, as a process, is distinct from


14/28

13

coordination in that it involves an actual pooling of efforts and resources by two or more

stakeholders rather than an often imperfect alignment of otherwise independent and

individual efforts. This implies a sharing of power, a key challenge for collaborative

processes. The authors suggest the collaboration process is defined by four stages:

problem definition, direction setting, structuring and outcomes. Beginning with problem

setting, collaboration in this stage helps with bringing the disparate knowledge and

perspectives of participating organisations together into a common understanding. It can

also help forge connections between stakeholders. With the problem definition in place

the next step is to decide upon some course(s) of action. Joint direction setting while

challenged by differences in perspective, values and aspirations, can enhance legitimacy

of defined goals. Structuring refers to the process of organising collective resources into

procedures and arrangements designed to enable collective action. Finally the results of

these actions need to be measured with results feeding back into problem definition,

strengthening a renewed and iterative process of collaboration.

Watson (2010) suggests that while in practice collaboration will be difficult and is not a

stand alone approach, it provides the basis for a dynamic, ongoing and interactive

approach to IWRM. Success will depend on the design of institutional arrangements and

the capacity for participating organisations to reach consensus among diverse groups with

different values and objectives. The design of these institutional arrangements may

benefit from and be informed by the nine indicators proposed by Engle et al (2010). Both

of these studies suggest that though an adaptive management approach offers certain

benefits there are limitations. Perhaps in light of this there is increasing interest in

blended approaches that seek to combine aspects of IWRM and adaptive management

into more effective arrangements.

In striking this balance it is important to understand the relationships between techno-

scientific knowledge and how this relates to participation, democracy, deliberation,

diversity and adaptability. Engle et al (2011) suggest that both IWRM and adaptive

management have been informed by the literature on common pool resources

management, participatory decentralisation and resilience theory looking to: increase


15/28

14

effectiveness through integration; add legitimacy through stakeholder participation;

incorporate technical expertise through including range of knowledge and social learning;

and in the case of adaptive management, become more flexible through experimentation.

While blended frameworks emphasise stakeholder participation and sector integration to

reduce uncertainty, assumptions that mechanisms such as decentralisation, participation,

social learning and integration, compliment each other need to be tested for possible

negative interactions. The authors suggest that there may be a number of tensions implicit

within blended approaches. For instance the efficiency of IWRM mechanisms that

function through existing institutions may operate at over a different time-frame than the

more discursive social learning approaches associated with adaptive management. This

aligns with findings from the earlier study into the effectiveness of an adaptive capacity

index, which found that higher levels of representativeness of organisations and

participation in system structures may exhibit trade-offs with equality of decision making

and knowledge availability (Engle et al, 2010). Overall, while adaptive approaches show

promise, reconciling them with previous and current management systems presents

certain challenges. For example the legacy of institutional development and institutional

path dependency may affect the degree to which systems are available to adaptive

processes (Nelson & Weschler, 1998; Engle et al 2011).

3.3 Participation and the Public

The importance of public involvement must be stressed. Important knowledge and

information that can be instrumental in the identification and definition of problems often

lies beyond the reach of managers and scientists. Meaningful inclusion can bring this

information to decision making, potentially allowing for more accurate and sophisticated

policy responses (Watson, 2010).

Further challenging management of these complex systems are broader changes in

governance, public administration and citizen preferences that have been slowly

developing through the later half of the twentieth century. The program-driven Keynesian

welfare state that dug deep into public coffers in order to maintain a level of societal


16/28

15

stability through good times and bad has gradually fallen out of favour. Deficit financing

has become the exception not the norm. Governments are required to be leaner (Pal,

2010). At the same time falling levels of public trust in government have resulted in an

increased interest and expectation that policy development be transparent, consultative

and accountable (Pal, 2008). It has also resulted in a corresponding growth in demand for

citizen engagement and participation in governance (Bourgon, 2007). Overall this can be

characterised as a trend away from government toward governance, where agencies

are increasingly focussed on creating the conditions and facilitating action (steering), and

progressively less involved with driving policy development and implementation

(rowing) (Watson, 2010).

Drawing on the work of Rawls (1971), and his assertions of the importance of public

deliberation and access to the political agenda, Cohen (1997) suggests that democracy,

when properly conducted, involves public deliberation focussed on the common good,

requires some form of manifest equality among citizens, and shapes the identity and

interests of citizens in ways that contribute to the formation of a public conception of

common good. It is through these means, he argues, that members of a pluralist

democratic society will come to understand themselves and their own legitimate interests.

In other words participation in process gives rise to the legitimacy of its outcomes. This is

echoed by Fisher et al (2008) who found that community participation in the valuation of

ecosystem goods and services led to greater ownership of subsequent decision making.

So we see that new approaches, such as adaptive management, that draw on resources

outside government both meet public expectation and may offer more efficient forms of

governance. Moreover higher levels of public involvement can results in more legitimate

outcomes, which in turn can result more compliance requiring less enforcement.

4.0 Analysis

Existing infrastructure provides a range of benefits however there is general

acknowledgement of a need to reduce negative impacts. Restorative steps may include


17/28

16

increasing minimum flows, the installation or improvement of fish ladders and periodic

release of large amounts of water to simulate storm events (Bednarek & Hart, 2005).

However the discussion thus far has highlighted the importance and complexities of

institutional dimensions.

4.1 Case Studies

Turning to the literature there are a number of case studies that employ various aspects

and combinations of approaches that have been discussed so far. For example, in

Australia, a series of extensive water management reforms were implemented to promote

ecologically sustainable development, achieve environmental improvements in water

systems, clarify users water rights, achieve efficient use and allocation, and an equitable

distribution of costs. The integration of responsibilities between water management and

other natural resources management organisations eventually led to creation of

Catchment Management Authorities (CMA), beginning in 2004. These organisations,

consisting of state and local government representatives, farmers, scientists,

conservationists and indigenous peoples, were charged with developing Catchment

Action Plans. To support the activities of CMAs in meeting their responsibilities they are

allocated a total of $406M (Myiak et al, 2004). In New South Wales high nutrient levels

were causing eutrophication issues in the Ben Chifley Dam reservoir. An integrated

assessment and modelling approach was developed to assist managers identify actions to

reduce nutrient inputs from catchment lands. Acknowledging that stakeholder

participation can result in better informed decision making, more public ownership and

more open, integrated and democratic decision making processes, project researchers

incorporated stakeholder participation throughout the model development process

(Newham et al, 2010). With stakeholder activities ranging from consultation to active

contribution in policy development the stakeholders consulted included, the Department

of Environment and Conservation, Department for Infrastructure Planning and Nature

Resource, and representatives of Central West Catchment Management Committee, the

Oberon and Evans Shire Councils, and Bathurst City Council. All of these organisational

stakeholders were already represented on the Ben Chifley Steering Committee, a


18/28

17

community institution in charge of catchment management (Myiak et al,2004).

Landholders were also and consulted regarding their views and reactions, i.e. at a lower

level of engagement than organisational participants (Newham et al, 2010)

Benefits resulting from the participatory activities were found to include, identification

and action on stakeholder issues, improved information flow between researchers and

stakeholders, increased collaboration between local management agencies. Factors for

successful participatory activities included early integration of stakeholder interests, a

range of different participatory approaches and tailored activities, and support of local

management organisations. The process incorporates aspects of collaborative processes in

that stakeholders were pooling resources to collectively solve a problem (Watson, 2010),

in this case the design integrated modelling software. However participation was found to

be resource intensive and resource constrained. In addition there was little representation

from non-institutional stakeholders.

In 1991 as part of the Reservoir Releases Improvement Program the Tennessee Valley

Authority was mandated to adjust minimum flows and improve water quality parameters.

Water depths and velocities were found to be at extremely low levels during periods of

non-generation, affecting levels of dissolved oxygen in tailwaters (Bednarek & Hart,

2005). A wholly owned US Government Corporation and the nations largest public

power system, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is tasked with managing the

Tennessee River system for the purposes of navigation, flood control, power generation,

water quality, land conservation, recreation and economic development, while preserving

natural assets (TVA, 2000). Under Objective 1.2, Retain Customers and Grow

Stakeholder Support, of the TVA Strategic Plan 2000-2005 (2000), stakeholder relations

and communications are to be measured using a Stakeholder Process Satisfaction Index.

The benefits of stakeholder communications and relations were given as improved

anticipation of issues, effective internal and external communications, and stakeholder

understanding of the issues. Specific approaches to engaging stakeholders were not

given. From examination of 2002, 2004, 2008 and 2010 Annual Performance Plans,

stakeholder relations do not present themselves as a strong priority of TVA. In 2002 the


19/28

18

Stakeholder Satisfaction Index was identified as a new indicator that would be developed

by 2003. The 2004 report offered the same assurances. By 2008 the index had

disappeared from the Annual Performance Plan however text referring to the benefits of

stakeholder relations continued to be found in the 2010 report.

Nevertheless, while the flow regime remained highly modified following operational

changes implemented under the Reservoir Releases Improvement Program,

improvements in ecological integrity were observed. It was further hypothesised that

increasingly natural flows could lead to even larger ecological improvements. Given the

complexities of river ecosystems experiencing multiple impairments arising from

multiple stressors, expert analysis is required. Bednarek & Hart (2005) recommend

strategies that employ experimental approaches to the improvement of dam operations,

suggesting that informed predictions of ecosystem response should in part guide

operational adjustments within an adaptive management framework that can incorporate

lessons learned into evolved approaches. It may be asked whether operational

adjustments implemented by TVA have been as effective on in terms of societal

indicators, how associated goals would have been identified, and how TVA could

demonstrate this given the apparent low level of commitment to stakeholder engagement.

Through application of their theoretical framework and subsequent analysis, Blomquist et

al (2005) found that the Fraser Basin Council (FBC), a non-governmental basin

management organisation in British Columbia, works across jurisdictional and

constitutional boundaries bringing together federal and provincial governments, and has

successfully integrated these along with First Nations governments and the interests of

private stakeholders. FBC enables information sharing and maintains a reputation for

objectivity, likely contributing to the development of a diverse financial base. A key

success factor has been the promotion of interdependency among stakeholders however

its reliance on consensus occasionally slows down decision making. Watson (2010)

highlights their CARIBOO partnership model as demonstrating a successful approach to

collaboration. The CARIBOO model consists of a Common Vision that articulates long-

term management goals, major challenges and principles to guide action. Adaptive


20/28

19

Capacity arises from overlap and non-hierarchical structure that allow for discretion and

adaptability at the regional level while enabling integration of the four orders of

government (Federal, provincial, municipal, First Nations). In addition, annual meetings

provide opportunities for information exchange and social learning through exposure to

different ideas and perspectives. Resources are brought together through shared funding

arrangements. As a third-party facilitator FBC has Independence from government

control, adding to its reputation for objectivity, but maintains a connection to decision

making through continued government involvement. It Balances representation and

power through a consensus based approach, such that minority interests cannot be

outvoted by more powerful coalitions. Finally Outputs and Outcomes are monitored so

that progress can be assessed. The experiences in the Fraser Basin present an interesting

case study and approach to blending the participation and institutional integration of

IWRM with adaptive management and collaborative type approaches.

4.2 Analysis of the Ottawa River Watershed

Over the course of the last two centuries there has been a long history of industrial

activity on the Ottawa River. This prompted legislative responses focussed on issues

connected to industrial activity. While there were early insights into the broader

ecological ramifications of these activities legislation was typically in the spirit of

ensuring activities continue, but within certain limits. As such existing legislation is

limited in scope. In the case ofAn AgreementRespecting Ottawa River Regulation,flood

protection is a primary focus. The Agreement also specifies that the goals of integrated

management are to maintain the interests of various users, particularly hydroelectric

energy production. Other users are not identified explicitly and both Hydro Quebec and

Ontario Hydro are members of the Board and the Regulating Committee specified by the

Agreement. The pattern of preference is consistent and clear suggesting that there will bea certain amount of institutional path dependency to overcome if broader goals are to be

addressed in a meaningful way.

As early as 1910 the interprovincial nature of the Ottawa River watershed was identified

as constituting an additional challenge, when T. Aird Murrayargued for national level


21/28

20

action citing that provincial authorities were unable to safeguard the transboundary

resources of the basin (Benidickson, 2010). In characterising the conditions in the basin

as being the aggregated result of a series of uncoordinated actions, Harvey (1979)

questioned whether the basin would have developed in the same way had the river not

been subject to management actions (or inactions) of two different provinces. Indeed

these concerns speak to the challenge for basin agencies to know and understand the

mandate of other agencies, which may in fact reside within another government, with

different political interests and concerns. When these are higher level governments with

larger mandates and associated influence over conditions in the basin, this is a key issue.

Better knowledge here can be seen as a building block for improved institutional

integration and better outcomes.

Referring to Watsons (1998) conditions of institutional readiness, the Agreement does

not suggest that participating institutions are necessarily in a state of readiness. There are

no provisions for community involvement, nor is there any specific information given

concerning the broader goals and interests affected by water resources management in the

basin. Nonetheless the Agreement has had its successes. It effectively enables

coordinated operation of multiple hydroelectric installations along the Ottawa, supplying

flood control while maximising the efficient production of electricity. Agencies and

organisations involved in this undertaking have developed a depth of experience and

presumably have honed the institutional mechanisms needed to ensure smooth and

responsive processes. These contribute to the overall institutional readiness for broader

integration of management efforts along the Ottawa however there is room to expand

their ranks.

As was the case in Tennessee, improvements in ecological integrity could be achieved

through existing institutional arrangements with some adjustment to scheduled releases.

The installation of improved fish ladders could help address concerns over access and the

migration of certain species. These actions would constitute an improvement and are

more readily available through the existing arrangement. However we know from the

findings of Engle et al in Brazil (2010) that low levels of participation combined with a


22/28

21

reliance on heavy infrastructure equate to a more rigid system that is less able to adapt.

Looking beyond improved ecological integrity as an endpoint we find deeper questions

that force us to challenge our assumptions. What are the broader objectives of sustainable

water resources management? There may be outstanding issues regarding social impacts

associated with the flooding of traditional landscapes of First Nations people, or perhaps

impacts to shoreline dwellers due to operational protocols and temporal variations in

water levels, however it becomes difficult to identify specific issues in quantifiable terms.

This is the crux of the problem. Improved management requires a philosophical shift

from managing known issues to managing in such a way as to be prepared to adapt to

currently unidentifiable issues. A central part of this will be ensuring mechanisms are in

place to identify issues as they begin develop, while also ensuring the overall institutional

arrangement has the capacity to respond to these issues.

The literature on IWRM and adaptive management suggest that it would be both

meaningful and appropriate to explore opportunities for public involvement in this

regard. This is underscored by broader shifts in governance requiring governments to be

lean as well as responsive and open. The potential benefits here are better, more informed

and more legitimate decision making. This in turn may result in higher levels of

ownership and compliance, and improved overall outcomes. In the context of smaller

governments opportunities to bolster voluntary compliance are particularly valuable

when it comes to managing non-point sources pollution and other distributed behaviour-

based concerns. The absence of mechanisms to involve the public and incorporate

community knowledge and preferences in decision making reveals an institutional

arrangement that is not well positioned to identify and manage the broader range of issues

that could arise within the Ottawa River Basin, and as a result of their decision making.

As such The Ottawa River Regulation Planning Board is not currently empowered by the

terms of the Agreement to meet its mandate and maintain the interests of the variety of

water users present in the basin. Based on a current understanding of the need for an

integrated and decentralised approach that is dynamic and responsive in the face of

uncertainty, the Agreement appears ready for renewal.


23/28

22

4.3 Recommendations

Historical factors and the current state of governance in the basin suggest that fully

modernising the operation and governance of hydroelectric infrastructure in such a way

as to respect and contribute to the broader array of interests implicit in sustainable waterresource management, will require a substantial amount of transition. Given that there is

no history of participation a stepped approach is recommended. This should begin with

the identification and engagement of appropriate stakeholders. These include numerous

non-governmental organisations such as Conservation Authorities; basin authorities in

Quebec mandated under the Quebec Water Act; the Ottawa Riverkeeper; and experts

from local universities. These organisations have information, expertise, resources and

invaluable connections to the community. It would be beneficial to seek ways to develop

and tap into this policy network.

While public participation may bring a range of benefits, it must be meaningful to be

sustainable. This requires higher levels of engagement as early on in the decision making

process as possible, such as at the problem definition and direction setting stages, and

will benefit from institutional readiness to incorporate the knowledge and preferences of

the broader stakeholder community into decision making. If participation is seen to be

impactful this will encourage further participation. In addition communication and

engagement processes must be adequately resourced. This will be supported by the

inclusion of other government and non-governmental stakeholders.

Building adaptive capacity has been shown to be an inherently experimental process,

implying a degree of iteration. Accordingly at this point it is inappropriate to detail a final

solution however it is possible to identify strategic next steps.

1. An institutional atlas should be developed in order to identify relevantstakeholders and inform them about one anothers goals and mandate.

2. The broader stakeholder community should embark on a collective visioningprocess. This could help refine the institutional atlas, possibly identifying


24/28

23

additional interests and stakeholders. However the main purpose would be to

develop collaborative capital and a shared sense of direction from the outset.

3. Decision making should be devolved to the basin level in a meaningful manner.This includes the provision of adequate funding to support new institutional

arrangement in the early stages.

4. New arrangements should be brought together in a structured way that ensuresoutputs and outcomes are measured and made available to stakeholders

In terms of specific adjustments to the Ottawa River Regulation Board and An Agreement

Respecting Ottawa River Regulation, these will flow in large part from the collective

vision process and related activities. However it is expected that these will encompass a

statement regarding the broader interests vested in decision making concerning levels and

flows in the Ottawa River; the value of collaboration in support of the development of

adaptive capacity; and details regarding new governance arrangements that emerge from

the collective visioning process.

The interprovincial nature of the Ottawa River Basin presents an interesting and

somewhat uncommon governance challenge. It would be interesting to look more closely

at relevant institutions and assess how approaches to coordination and collaboration here

compare and contrast to approaches taken elsewhere in similar situations where multiple

higher level governments share management of a river that also acts as a political

boundary. This could involve further testing of the nine-point framework put forward by

Engle et al (2010). In addition it could be informative to investigate similar scenarios in

other country settings to observe alternative approaches and best practices.

5.0 Conclusions

Based on a historical investigation of development and governance in the Ottawa River

basin, and the current theory related to IWRM, we can conclude that governance in the

basin is defined by complex interconnecting issues, and that these issues and related

priorities are subject to change. This signals a need to redress current governance


25/28

24

approaches and develop more adaptive capacity. This will have a direct bearing on the

sustainability of water resources management in the basin. Current institutional

arrangements have been effective in their mandated role, and provide as good base of

experience in interjurisdictional cooperation on which to build. However it is time to

draw on the broader resources available within the basin and adopt a more collaborative

model in order to build the adaptive capacity needed to safeguard against unforeseen

future events while meeting a broader range of social, environmental and economic

interests.

Word count: 7246

References

1. Bandaragoda, D. J., & Babel, M. S. (2010). Institutional development for IWRM: An internationalperspective,Internatinoal Journal of River Basin Management, 8:3-4, 215-224.

2. Bednarek, A., T., & Hart, D., D. (2005). Modifying dam operations to restore rivers: Ecologicalresponses to Tennessee River dam mitigation,Ecological Applications, 15(3), 997-1008.

3. Benidickson, J. (2010). Cleaning up after the log drivers waltz : Finding the ottawa riverwatershed. Les Cahiers De Droit, 51(3-4), 729-748.

4. Blomquist, W., Dinar, A., & Kemper, K. (2005). Comparison of institutional arrangements forriver basin management in eight basins No. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper

3636)World Bank.

5. Bourgon, J. (2007). Responsive, responsible and respected government: towards a new publicadministration theory,International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(1), 7-26.

6. Bursey, D., McLean, J., & Longe, R. (2009). Managing water, fish and power - trends inenvironmental regulation of hydropower projects. Canadian Dam Association 2009 Annual

Conference, Whistler, BC, Canada.


26/28

25

7. Cohen, J. (1997). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy.Deliberative democracy: Essays onreason and politics (pp. 67-91). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

8. Conservation Ontario. (2009).History of conservation authorities. Retrieved 11/30, 2011, fromhttp://www.conservationontario.ca/about/history.html

9. Cushing, K. K. (2002). The world commission on dams report: Whats next? In P. H. Gleick(Ed.), The world's water: 2002-2003: The biennial report on freshwater resources (pp. 149) Island

Press.

10. de Groot, R. (2006). Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts inplanning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes.Landscape and Urban Planning, 75(3-4),

175-186.

11. Engle, N. L., Johns, O. R., Lemos, M. C., & Nelson, D. R. (2011). Integrated and adaptivemanagement of water resources: Tensions, legacies, and the next best thing. Ecology and

Society, 16(1)

12. Engle, N. L., & Lemos, M. C. (2010). Unpacking governance: Building adaptive capacity toclimate change of river basins in Brazil. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 4-13.

13. Farber, S. C., Costanza, R., & Wilson, M. A. (2002). Economic and ecological concepts forvaluing ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 375-392.

14. Fisher , B., Turner, K., Zylstra, M., Brouwer, R., De Groot, R., Farber, S., et al. (2008). Ecosystemservices and economic theory: Integration for policy-relevant research. Ecological

Applications, 18(8), 2050-2067.

15. An Agreement Respecting Ottawa River Basin Regulation, Version 2.1, (1994).16. Harvey, A. (1979). Improved regulation of the interprovincial Ottawa River. Canadian Water

Resources Journal, 4(4), 51-63.

17.

Haxton, Tim and Don Chubbuck. (2002).Review of the historical and existing natural

environment and resource uses on the Ottawa River. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources,

Science and Information Branch, Southcentral Science and Information Section Technical Report

#119. 76 p.


27/28

26

18. Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R. S., & van Ierland, E. C. (2006). Spatial scales, stakeholdersand the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 209-228.

19. International Conference on Water and the Environment (1992). The Dublin statement on waterand sustainable development. Retrieved 11/30, 2011. from

http://www.wmo.ch/pages/prog/hwrp/documents/english/icwedece.html

20. Limburg, K. E., O'Neill, R. V., Costanza, R., & Farber, S. (2002). Complex systems andvaluation. Ecological Economics, 41(3), 409-420.

21. Mortsch, L., Hengeveld, H., Lister, M., Lofgren, B., Quinna, F., Slivitzkys, M., Wenger, L.(2000). Climate Change Impacts on the Hydrology of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence

System. Canadian Water Resources Journal, 25(2), 153-179.

22. Myiak, J., Newham, L., & Letcher, R. (2004). Integrated modelling and decision-making analysisfor water quality management: The Ben Chifley dam catchment case study.Integrated Water

Management of Transboundary Catchments: a contribution from TRANSCAT, Venice, Italy.

23. Nelson, L. S., & Weschler, L. F. (1998). Institutional readiness for integrated watershedmanagement: The case of the Maumee River. The Social Science Journals, 35(4), 565-576.

24. Newham, L. T. H., Jakeman, A. J., & Letcher, R. A. (2007) Stakeholder participation in modellingfor integrated catchment assessment and management: An Australian case study,International

Journal of River Basin Management, 5:2, 79-91.

25. Ontario Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs (2011).Algonquin Land Claim. Retrieved 11/30, 2011,from http://www.aboriginalaffairs.gov.on.ca/english/negotiate/algonquin/algonquin.asp

26. Ottawa Riverkeeper. (2006). Ottawa Riverkeepers river report: Issue N1 - ecology and impactsOttawa Riverkeeper/Sentinelle Outaouais.

27. Pal, L. A. (2010).Beyond policy analysis: Public issue management in turbulent times, fourthedition. Canada: Nelson Education Ltd.

28. Pollution Probe. (2008).A new approach to water management in Canada. Toronto, Ontario:Pollution Probe.

29. Rawls, J. (1971).A theory of justice. Mass.: Harvard University Press.


28/28

30. Richter, B., D., Mathews, R., Harrison, D., L., & Wigington, R. (2003) Ecologically sustainablewater management: Managing river flows for ecological integrity,Ecological Applications, 13(1),

206-224.

31. Tennessee valley authority: Strategic plan FY 2000-2005(2000). Tennessee Valley Authority.32. Tennessee Valley Authority. (2001).Annual performance plan FY 200233. Tennessee Valley Authority. (2003).Annual performance plan FY 200434. Tennessee Valley Authority. (2007).Annual performance plan FY 200835. Tennessee Valley Authority. (2010). Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan36. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. (2009).Agenda 21, section II,

conservation & management of resources for development. Retrieved 11/30, 2011,

from http://www.un.org.proxy.library.carleton.ca/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_18.shtml

37. Watson, N. (2010) Integrated river basin management: A case for collaboration,InternationalJournal of River Basin Management, 2:4, 243-257.

Documents

Final Paper - Retallack