1. Empowering watershed management in 2050: What are we missing?

2. Watersheds are ecosystems and we (should) manage them as such
Watersheds are ecosystems and we (should) manage them as such. But the future is uncertain (due to climate change and many other influences) so we must manage adaptively. Globally and locally we need knowledge, tools and people to do that. Today, a journey from UNEP to WHAF to IISD to the classroom, and a conversation about what we seem to be missing.

3. Build a conceptual framework Contrast & compare EM & IWRM
16 Modules:
Build a conceptual framework
Contrast & compare EM & IWRM
Ecosystem structure and function
A framework for ecosystem state and impact
Field trip to a local watershed
Capacity development program
Ecosystem management at the watershed scale
UNEP & IISD,
Using your framework to assess ecosystem state and function
Understanding current conditions here
Think like a manager: strategic, adaptive management
Incentives & tools for local scale adaptive management
Valuing ecosystem services
Tradeoffs and goals in adaptive ecosystem management
Selecting tools for local application
Monitoring & evaluation
Completing the cycle of strategic adaptive management
Reporting, communication with stakeholders
Synthesis and committing to the next steps

4. Field tested in Kenya
Revised and published (2011)
Developed ToT Version
SE Asian field test in South Korea
Pairs from 12 countries
Further offered in West Asia
ToT version Published (2013)
Overall pretty good, not perfect

5. Bring that to the classroom
Water quality class
About 30 people
You are advising the Board and manager of a Minnesota watershed. How should he/she/they take an ecosystem approach in their management?
Beth and Ben are critical here
Use the WHAF and all associated materials
Think about the watershed as an ecosystem
We offer climate change scenarios
They pose actions for the future

6. The work to date paid inadequate attention to climate change
So we developed The Adaptive Watershed (TAW): Training for watershed-based adaptation and management

7. 14 Modules delivered in a 4-day workshop
From knowledge to action

8. The Adaptive Watershed (TAW): Training for watershed-based adaptation and management
Understand the watershed and analyze risks to ecosystems and livelihoods

9. The Adaptive Watershed (TAW): Training for watershed-based adaptation and management
Identify and prioritize options
Identify opportunities and constraints

10. The Adaptive Watershed (TAW): Training for watershed-based adaptation and management
Potential field tests in Peru & Uganda in 2018
Monitor, evaluate and adapt
Engage and communicate
Envision a 2-year process of commitment, action, reporting, adapting

11. But we recognized a serious problem: We cannot manage for the benefit of individuals. Traditionally we manage for “the greater good”.
And therefore, we manage for “the middle of the curve”. Which usually translates to the majority (and the loudest, most visible, most powerful).
Which means “The most vulnerable” lose. And vulnerable might be defined socially, economically, culturally or in other ways.
So TAW explicitly addresses vulnerable communities, breadth of stakeholder involvement, inclusivity.

12. Return to the classroom
About 5 graduate and 25 undergraduate students
Advising the Board and manager of a Minnesota watershed. Still ecosystem scale, but now What should he/she/they do in 3-5 years to be most successful in 2050?
Use the WHAF and all associated materials.
Characterize the watershed in 7 weeks
We offer climate change scenarios for two sub-basins.
In the second 7 weeks, they frame actions for the next 3-5 years for each sub-basin.
Beth and Ben guest lecture and participate a lot.
Undergrads in teams of 4.
Grads individually & they explicitly add EbA to that.

13. So how’s that working out?
These things are good
WHAF is a great tool. Intuitive, informative, deep, rich.
Interaction with Beth & Ben is very positive.
They (& Kenny Bulmenfeld) help refine the exercise and refine sub-basin specifics.
Interaction with DNR (i.e., Beth, Ben, WHAF) advances most students’ career goals.

14. So how’s that working out?
These things are not yet mature
In TAW:
There are no win-win outcomes; everything is a trade-off. Inclusivity comes at a cost. I’m not convinced that is sufficiently explicit.
It’s not real until it’s been field tested (and revised).
I want to see change on the ground. I intend to achieve that with the 2-year commitment of action, assessment, reporting and adaptation but it is exceedingly difficult.
In the classroom
Scenarios contain no demographic nor economic variables.
Scenarios offer changes in mean temp and precipitation but extremes and seasonality will control responses.
There is no consideration of social or economic vulnerability .
I’m not convinced the scale is right; we’re simulating HUC 12s. There is variance within one of those; the scale of decisions is not yet explicit.
Adaptability, especially hard vs. soft seems confusing:
Everyone offers hard solutions (e.g., buffers).
A few offer soft solutions (e.g., incentives).
Almost nobody addresses governance, stakeholder involvement.

15. And next? Field test TAW? Maybe Uganda, maybe Peru, maybe not at all.
Classes again Fall 2018
Is this spatial scale (HUC 12) meaningful?
Is it practical and necessary to add economic & demographic scenarios to a water quality class?
WHAF continually evolves; what’s next and how do we use it?
In what ways are governance, decision making, vulnerable communities meaningful in the WHAF? Or …
are those outside the scope of the WHAF?
How consistent are these questions and this momentum with what you see as needs and opportunities?