Nigel Watson

In our previous Commentary (Mitchell, Shrubsole, and Watson 2021), we examined the role of the conservation authorities (CAs) in Ontario. We considered whether CAs would end or evolve, or reach an ...

Ontario Conservation Authorities (CAs) were established in 1946 as a partnership between the Ontario provincial government and municipalities. Initially, their purpose was to apply a catchment or watershed approach to provide services and programs to reduce risk from flooding and erosion through an integrated approach to water and land management. In 2021, there are 36 Conservation Authorities. We consider key changes the Ontario Government has initiated or will be initiating related to CAs which are: (1) The relevant provincial Minister will have authority to approve specific development proposals or for an entire class of permits for a specified period of time in areas within CAs, even if the CAs oppose such development because the proposals involve areas vulnerable to flooding or other related hazards; and (2) Applicants for development permits will be able to appeal directly to the Provincial Minister and also the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) if their application is turned down by the Hearing Board of the relevant CA. This commentary describes key issues that have been historically noted as ‘problematic’ for previous and the current Provincial Governments, and shares information and insight on those matters. The conclusion considers whether the changes represent an end, an evolution, an interlude (an intervening period, an opportunity to recalibrate or refocus) or an epiphany (a moment of insight or understanding), or some combination thereof, for the CAs.

Conventional modes of environmental governance, which typically exclude those stakeholders that are most directly linked to the specific place, frequently fail to have the desired impact. Using the example of lake water management in Loweswater, a small hamlet within the English Lake District, we consider the ways in which new “collectives” for local, bottom-up governance of water bodies can reframe problems in ways which both bind lay and professional people to place, and also recast the meaning of “solutions” in thought-provoking ways.

The frames and approaches adopted for collaborative catchment management (CCM) by 22 host organizations in England were examined. Hosts framed and approached CCM according to their particular funding arrangements, management priorities, actor networks, attitudes toward knowledge and uncertainty, and willingness to share power and take risks. The findings support the theory of path dependency, and indicate that the majority of hosts created CCM groups that were much narrower in scope, direction, and structure than had been envisaged by government policymakers. To address this, a new national policy framework for catchment management in England is recommended that defines guiding principles for collaboration and balances the needs for clear direction and discretion in policy implementation.

Implementation of IWRM has generally been approached mechanistically, with attention focused on identifying necessary conditions and developing useful tools and techniques. In contrast, this article examines alternative approaches to implementation in their totality, using IWRM in England as a case analysis. In England, the EU Water Framework Directive has been implemented through a ‘top-down’ approach but a ‘bottom-up’ approach has been adopted for catchment management. Both the Water Framework Directive and the catchment-based approach are consistent with the goals of IWRM, but their implementation arrangements are disconnected and operate at different scales. This example suggests that cross-scale interplay and bridging institutions are critical to the successful implementation of IWRM in complex governance settings.