Examples of Two Full Case Studies

Climate Change and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed: Where Will All the Water Go? Minnesota, USA

James Gruber and Leslie Yetka

Prologue

This is a story of how an urban area come together to figure out what to do with all that rain. Climate change was already affecting this south-central region of Minnesota and needed to be addressed.  The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District was a key local partner in this multi-stakeholder process.[i]  Rather than hiring experts to design and build additional “grey” (concrete) infrastructure, the watershed district worked with local governments[ii], NGOs, universities[iii], and others to engage a wide range of stakeholders in coming together and developing an integrated, comprehensive approach. Outcomes included changes in land use and planning approaches, promoting low impact development with less impervious areas, encouraging rain gardens, enhancing storm water retention through “green” infrastructure, addressing educational needs, and developing strategies for sustainable financing of new stormwater systems through impact fees on impervious surfaces. It was hoped that this participatory process would not only help solve the current problems but also create partnerships and expand local knowledge to ensure that climate change adaptation and resilience would continue to address on-going needs.         

Introduction and General Overview

When we were asked to help plan and co-lead this public participation and planning process[iv] in the Minneapolis region of Minnesota, we jumped at the opportunity. While climate change is a world-wide problem that requires a world-wide solution, local communities have an important role and responsibility to address its effects now.   In this case study we will share how the public participation and decision-making process was a key element in helping to create a climate change adaption plan for a neighborhood in the City of Minneapolis and the City of Victoria (A-B-F-J).  The locally assembled public process team, working closely with the science team, planned and implemented a collaborative stakeholder-driven planning process that engaged a wide range of constituency groups (B-D-E). This two-year process resulted in specific and prioritized adaptation strategies for addressing the growing stormwater intensive flooding events.  

Goals, Approaches, Challenges, and Outcomes

Goals

Our overarching goal with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Stormwater Adaptation project was to increase resilience, adaptive capacity, and social capital by engaging the public with current climate change science and accessible local data and fostering collaboration and trust among agencies and the general public (B-E-I). 

Approach

“Long-term environmental, economic, and social sustainability can only be reached by empowering individuals and communities to understand the root causes of local problems and to participate in creating solutions.”[v]

The team developed an overall approach that was founded on the assumption that the quality of outcomes will be enhanced by incorporating social values, interests, and concerns of all those that are affected, including best available knowledge/science, into the decision-making process (E). It was further recognized that any recommended actions or solutions, no matter how brilliant, are of little value if the process is not recognized as legitimate (G). The team was therefore dedicated to the having this process be fair, well-facilitated and ensuring that it followed due process.  Finally, the team recognized the need to raise awareness of the current climate change situation, build networks and partners, and develop a shared understanding of both the challenges that needed to be addressed and opportunities on how to move forward in addressing them (B-D).

The specific approach involved the following distinct phases:

·       Advisory Committee- Few societal changes can be accomplished without a broad group of partners. We identified, engaged, and formalized an inclusive Advisory Committee to aid in engaging a broad range of stakeholders, as well as provide guidance on how to direct the engagement process itself. This Advisory Committee also provided an opportunity to build leadership capacity within the various groups the committee represented (B-I).

·       Outreach/ Convening Stakeholders- In order to get a broad cross-section of stakeholders, we reached out to representatives from various levels of government (local, regional, state, federal), NGOs, academia and education organizations, non-profits, and community associations. For on-going public outreach, we established several communication channels, including a dedicated webpage and a project newsletter, as well as a series of public forums (A-B-D).

·       First Forum- During the first forum an update on the current and historic precipitation patterns in our region was shared. Participants then assessed the situation based on their personal knowledge and initial information/data collected by the science team (E). We had crafted guiding questions for discussions that allowed stakeholders to express diverse perspectives, reflect, and gain an understanding of underlying causes of the local flooding. The participants then framed an overall vision and developed broad objectives (B-E-H).  Four areas were prioritized: 1) Education Approaches, 2) Land Use and Planning, 3) Stormwater Infrastructure and Low Impact Development, and 4) Sustainable Funding for Stormwater Systems; working groups were developed to do address each area.

·       Working Groups- Each working group met several times (B). They identified barriers to progress on climate change adaptation and identified potential strategies and tools for implementation.  These potential strategies were then vetted using an impact vs. feasibility grid.[i]  Ideally, we wanted to identify the strategy with the highest feasibility of being implemented, along with the greatest impact.

·       Second Forum- The final phase of the engagement process convened stakeholders to develop specific action plans in order to form a framework for community adaptation planning. Because these action plans were based the prior work of the working groups and the priorities identified by the stakeholders themselves, they served to increase the legitimacy and relevance of the actions proposed (D). 

Challenges

Throughout the public participation process there were multiple challenges that had to be addressed. Often scientists and experts are used to providing information, but are less accustomed to listening to alternative ideas or approaches proposed by citizens (E-I). There was also the challenge of shifting local leaders’ current focus on (inadequate) short term fixes to more long-term and sustainable ones. Finally, as with any collaborative stakeholder process, it can be difficult to get a broad diversity of the participants with diverse backgrounds and viewpoints to actually participate. This may require multiple forms of communication as well as person-to-person invitations (D).

Outcomes

The stakeholder outreach process provided an opportunity for broad stakeholder input to develop a community adaptation framework that was locally relevant and grounded in scientific data (A-B-E). The public participation process allowed for co-leadership and co-creation of priories and implementation strategies (I). One participant reflected, “Comments from diverse stakeholders, not just technical professionals, is important.” A specific set of prioritized actions, each with an implementation framework, were agreed to by the participants and were embraced by local government and other officials participating in this initiative (J). Linkages between groups were strengthened (B). By raising awareness and building broad involvement, critical land-use policies and prevention actions are more likely to receive the needed political support, so that they can compete with the plethora of other demands that local communities are facing every day.

Reflections on Principle F: Delegate and Empower

It was not easy to engage some local or regional government officials that considered themselves experts and who already thought they knew what was needed. However, by involving these officials in community forums and working groups, we believe that they perceived their informal authority (or authorizing environment) grew by working with others and this would make it easier to accomplish their goals. For example, the City Council would be more willing to heed their advice. We have observed over the years that by engaging and empowering community members to be “at the table”, better decisions are made. The more empowered people are in a process of change, the more willing they will be to embrace critically needed community change.

Citations:

[i] See Chapter 14.

[i] Leslie Yetka of MCWD was a key leader in this public engagement and participation process.

[ii] Cities of Minneapolis and Lake Victoria.

[iii] University of Minnesota and Antioch University New England (AUNE).

[iv] The public engagement and participation process was a part of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Stormwater Adaption Study. The Co-Principle Investigators were Michael Simpson, from AUNE and Latham Stack, from Synthetic International. It received funding support by the Climate Program Office of NOAA.

[v] Antioch New England Institute Annual Report.

Regenerating a Village’s Land and Water Resources Water-led Transformation, Hiware Bazar, India 

Shilpy Arora

Prologue

Hiware Bazar, one of India’s most prosperous villages, was transformed from a drought-prone and water-scarce settlement to an economically strong community. The fate of the village changed in the 1990s, after a young Popatrao Baguji Pawar, the area’s only postgraduate, was elected village head. Pawar engaged residents in planning and execution of various projects, including watershed management, building of percolation tanks, and carrying out extensive plantation drives. He realized that there was a need not only to address drought-related issues but also to make residents self-reliant, and persuade them to participate in development work to help bring about social, economic and environmental change. 

The story of transformation that is Hiware Bazar illuminates how effective communication by a local leader brought residents together to address environmental challenges, paving the way to economic prosperity and social development – and, thus, a healthier future.

Introduction and General Overview

Located in the semi-arid foothills of the Sahyadris mountain range, in Ahmednagar district of Maharashtra, Hiware Bazar is marked by agricultural plots dotting the undulating terrain. The average annual rainfall is not more than 350mm. Farmers and their crops survive mainly on rainfall and groundwater. But in 1972, the village faced a severe drought as water retention was limited due to poor permeability of the local geology. Degradation of forests created additional stress on resources. Farmers in the village had no option but to migrate to cities in search of employment. Those who chose to stay back fell into depression or became addicted to alcohol. This fueled many social and economic problems. Soon, however, the fortunes of Hiware Bazar changed. Those who left the village in the 1970s and 80s, looking for jobs in nearby cities like Pune and Mumbai, came back in the 1990s and 2000s.Within a decade, the income of villagers increased by around 20 times. According to a 1995 survey, 168 families out of 180 were below the poverty line. Today, no family in the village of Hiware Bazar falls in that category.

Now, the village has well-built immaculate roads, concrete houses, a school, and a community centre, which are rare in Indian villages. Every home has a toilet. The village has a high school, a health centre and a well-maintained mother and child care hospital. There are 294 open wells, recharging groundwater. There is a ban on deforestation, digging of tube wells, grazing animals, open defecation, tobacco consumption and alcohol consumption. Even though rain is still scarce, the village manages to maintain the water table at 20-25 meters (which was once recorded as high as 70-80 meters). It has been a remarkable turnaround.

Goals, Approaches, Challenges and Outcomes

Goals

1. To increase the water table with a low-cost, self-managed, and effective way in order to help farmers increase agricultural produce (A-B)

2. To introduce and establish community farming to address the problem of labor and create an environment of social cohesion (B-C-D)

3. To spread awareness to enforce a proper ban on the water-intensive crops, and encourage all farmers to grow vegetables, pulses, and fruit that use less water (D-E)

4. To help villagers look beyond agriculture and introduce floriculture and dairy farming (K)

5. To improve the quality of grass with the help of soil conservation in order to make available fodder for animals that leads to an increase in milk yield

6. To introduce and establish community engagement programs so that people assist in community building (A-B)

 Approaches

Participatory governance: The village council (Panchayat) [i] drafts a comprehensive five-year development plan and involves all community members in drafting the plan. School children are involved in reading rain gauges and measuring groundwater levels. Women collect a monthly water tax on individual connections. Decisions on water budgeting, crop planning and maintenance of water structures are taken during meetings of the village council. Besides, monitoring cleanliness and afforestation drives is a responsibility of village committees[ii] comprising villagers and officers. Participation by all the residents – rich, poor, young and old - creates a strong sense of ownership (A-B-D-F-H-J).

Using short-term funds for long-term development: In 1972, when the village was reeling under water crisis, the village council used the money provided by different government schemes for drought relief to work on reviving the forest and the catchments for village wells. The council then took up watershed conservation and soil conservation. Therefore, the short-term drought relief funds were used for sustainable long-term development (C).

Voluntary contributions: The council encouraged the community to work together and contribute towards labor-intensive work including tree plantation, construction of wells, digging trenches around hill contours to trap rainwater, building percolation tanks and check dams (A-B). The villagers worked as laborers to build check dams, trenches, and wells. The residents were encouraged to help the community through Shramdaan[iii] (a voluntary contribution involving only physical labor). When government funding was inadequate, villagers volunteered physical labor so that the funds could be used to purchase good quality construction materials (K-L). To date, residents come forward to build community buildings and check dams through Shramdaan.

Investment in water conservation: After farmers’ income stabilized, they began to invest in water conservation by building additional water storage structures. Many farmers invested in drip irrigation to conserve water and soil (C-D-E-I-K).

Change in cropping patterns: Farmers were made aware to avoid water-guzzling crops like sugarcane and bananas. Millets, onions, and potatoes, which use less water, were promoted (D-E-I-K).

Promoting activities other than agriculture: Many farmers used their increased agricultural earnings to buy cattle. Since the re-vegetation program and as part of watershed development, there was an increase in the availability of good quality grass for cattle, and this helped to increase the milk yield. Dairying, therefore, emerged as an important source of income. Similarly, floriculture, which uses less water, also gained popularity among farmers (D-F-I-K).

Investment in education: The village invests a good amount of money to create a good education system. The literacy rate of the village that was 30% about 20 years ago, has now increased to 95%. In primary education, children learn about water and soil conservation. Today, children from other villages also come to study in the village school (D).

Transparency to gain trust: To make the process transparent, the village council makes revenue and expenditures accounts accessible to all (D-G-H-J).

Community-driven priorities and regulation: There is a strict ban on tree cutting, grazing, and digging of tube wells. The emphasis is on maintaining the ecological balance (A-C-H-L).

Challenges

One of the major challenges was to make landless farmers reap the benefits of the development, as all the schemes primarily benefited those who owned land. Since landowners own most downstream land, they had easy access to water. On the other hand, poorer farmers living uphill/upstream had to wait for years to reap the benefits of groundwater recharge. Also, the limiting access to pasture/forest land for grazing animals and a strict ban on deforestation had an impact on the livelihoods of landless, who were dependent on the forest for firewood. Nevertheless, an inclusive approach by the village council helped address the challenge. The poor and landless farmers were involved in labor-intensive work and were paid by the council through the government’s employment schemes. Moreover, the Panchayat (village council) took steps to actively assist those who did not benefit directly from the program.

Outcomes

Improvement in water table: With the help of dug-wells to tap the shallow aquifers and rainwater harvesting, the water table in the area has increased from 70-80 feet to 20-25 feet. It was despite that the average rainfall has been 350 mm in the village.

Increase in fodder availability: A ban on grazing increased the availability of good quality grass (fodder) - from 1500 metric tonnes in 1994 and 1995 to 5000-6000 metric tonnes in 2001 and 2002. As a result, there was an increase in milk production from 300 litres per day to 3500 litres per day over that same time period.

Reverse migration: Reverse migration began in 1995. Over 200 families moved back to the village and invested in agriculture.

Increase in per capita income: The success of watershed development helped many families recover from debt and poverty. Per capita income of all families increased drastically within two decades. Today, the village boasts to having one of the highest per capita income in the country.

Sustainable development: The community realized that a ban on felling trees and massive afforestation drives, and effective water conservation programs helped in ecological restoration, thereby ensuring sustainable development.

Reflections on the Principle D: Be Transparent

Communication remains an effective tool in ensuring people’s participation, community mobilization, building their confidence to draft development plans and carry them out. The success story of Hiware Bazar shows how open communication can help in promoting action. Through effective open communication, villagers developed their own model of community participation in government programmes such as social forestry. “Every day, I try my best to interact with a group of villagers, especially youngsters. It is crucial to make sure that people from all economic, social and cultural backgrounds share their ideas and participate in the development work,” said Pawar[i].

It is important to note that informal modes of communication such as community meetings at village squares and at the village council building proved effective in this case. Sharing the results helped achieve bigger goals. Various success stories emerged through the proper dissemination of information. Nine neighbouring villages - Khor (district Buldhana), Sakhara (district Washim), Kothoda (district Yavatmal), Kingaon (district Aurangabad), Nivdungewadi (district Ahmednagar), and Bhagadi (district Pune) - replicated the model of Hiware Bazar. It should be noted that drought-prone and suicide-prone villages also benefited from the successful developmental programs of Hiware Bazar.

Interestingly, the information is still shared with the younger generation; often times, the younger generations are not made aware of the steps taken by their ancestors who carried out developmental work in the past. However, as residents of Hiware Bazar involve youngsters, they are able to pass on the knowledge on. ‘Water awareness’ is an integral part of the school curriculum since primary education. The students are also involved in drafting water budget and annual auditing.

Citations:

[i] Interview of Popatrao Baguji Pawar, who has been the village head (Sarpanch) for the past 25 years.

[i] Panchayat is a village council that has an elected head and five reputed villagers acknowledged by the community as its governing body. This case study draws upon published accounts of Hiware Bazar’s village council and interviews with community members.

[ii] Village Committees are comprised of villagers and officers to monitor various activities and regulations in the village.

[iii] Shramdaan is a traditional concept that means voluntary contribution involving physical effort.