Home / Section 2 – Moving to Action: NRT National Water Forum Report

Section 2 – Moving to Action: NRT National Water Forum Report

KEY FORUM THEMES

This section summarizes the key themes discussed in the morning panel sessions of the Water Forum.¹ While many challenges are involved in implementing the NRT recommendations, we take note of one particularly difficult challenge for each topic.

WATER FORECASTS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF WATER DATA AND INFORMATION

Although many of the NRT recommendations related to water forecasts and data were viewed as relevant and important, four key themes emerged from the discussions:

• A broader ecological and sustainability context
• Data and information collection with purpose
• Forecasting good, backcasting better
• Accessible and open data

» A BROADER ECOLOGICAL AND SUSTAINABILITY CONTEXT

Canadians need to set the discussion of estimating, forecasting, monitoring, and managing water use, demand, and supply in the context of ecosystems and sustainability. A sector approach to collecting water data can be useful. Even more beneficial, however, is a broader approach that integrates measuring, monitoring, and forecasting water use with ecosystem needs and directly correlates this to a desired management outcome.

A singular focus on quantitative water use misses issues of water quality, biodiversity, and ecological integrity. Many participants noted that a significant gap in our knowledge centres on in-stream flow needs and the sustainable withdrawals that can be accommodated. Such information is necessary both within a watershed context and with a temporal component to capture seasonal flows and withdrawals.

Without taking climate change into account, data collection does not provide for good forecasting. Water-use forecasting needs to integrate changing climate patterns, which directly affect hydrological conditions. The idea of stationarity — where past hydrological conditions (precipitation, runoff or other flows) are seen as key inputs to future projections — no longer prevails; with climate change, historical water use may not be representative of future use due to differing hydrology and water temperatures.

» DATA AND INFORMATION COLLECTION WITH PURPOSE

Data for the sake of data is latent potential — it needs meaning in terms of how it links to economic growth and industrial competitive advantage on a specific watershed or sector basis. At a strategic level, it is necessary to first set the conditions society wants for economic development and ecosystem health and then develop monitoring and information programs that reflect those conditions.

Data and information can be viewed as an economic opportunity. Considerable information already exists on water resources, but it’s scattered. Communities need to think about opportunities for integrating data and knowledge and explore the economic opportunities of working with information technology sectors to develop processes and programs that can be leveraged, used, and exported to other parts of the world.

» FORECASTING GOOD, BACKCASTING BETTER

Forecasting provides a way of looking toward a future based on current conditions. Participants agreed that a more substantive but not necessarily “perfect” water-demand and use forecast is needed. They agreed with the recommendation in Charting a Course that this be done at a basin level and that the results be integrated with the supply-side hydrological data creating water balances. In this way, questions about future water demands could be better understood.

While forecasting water use and demand was seen as a useful and important tool, it was suggested it be used in a different way. Rather than simply forecasting future demand, participants recommended that a better approach would be to “backcast.” Backcasting sets a sustainability agenda for water, envisioning a desirable state of a watershed in the future and then uses water forecasts to figure out how that vision could be achieved. This backcasting approach is based on the “Water Soft Path Approach” that uses strategic thinking to envision a desirable future and then integrates policies, plans, and technological innovation accordingly.

» ACCESSIBLE AND OPEN DATA

The NRT’s recommendation to have a national water portal was favourably viewed. As many noted, industry, governments, and non-government organizations hold a considerable amount of data; what is required is a means to collect and use that data in a more transparent, open, and accessible way. To move this idea forward, participants suggested we look for best practices within provincial initiatives and adapt them for a national portal. Two examples are the Water and Environmental Hub (WEHUB) and the Alberta WaterPortal. More work is needed to standardize data, decide on its best use, and determine appropriate levels of disclosure. In an era of transparency in which consumers demand product provenance, chain of custody, and full ingredient disclosure, governments should be leading the way to “democratize data.”⁴

» NOTED CHALLENGE

Data and information collection, dissemination, and interpretation require sustained and focused efforts. Moving these recommendations forward will require new human and financial resources, not an easy challenge to overcome in the current financial situation facing many governments. Leadership and accountability are essential to ensuring the collection of water data and information over the longer term.

PUTTING A PRICE ON WATER

The NRT’s research on the potential use of pricing water, specifically with the use of volumetric charges, was viewed as innovative and applauded as a necessary first step toward further exploring this much talked-about, but not well understood, policy tool. The recommendations were largely accepted by Forum participants. Their discussions on water pricing revealed two themes:

• Signal the value of water to change behaviour
• Water pricing has real potential as a water management tool but needs further investigation

» SIGNAL THE VALUE OF WATER TO CHANGE BEHAVIOUR

Using economic instruments, such as water charges, encourages conservation by moving water use to its higher value. This will ultimately change the way industry uses water. Currently, all Canadian provinces and territories have the legislative authority to charge for water use. However, the charges — for the most part — reflect administrative fees, not the true value of water. Existing fees charged by governments are too low to affect the behaviour of the users. Water markets, another economic instrument, are in limited use in Canada, but exist for water quantities being traded in the South Saskatchewan Basin and water quality being traded in Ontario’s South Nation Watershed.

In signalling a value for water we have the option of volumetric charges versus water markets. The proposal put forward at the Forum was not to choose one, but to use both where appropriate — water management strategies could include integrated water management frameworks using both water charges and water markets. Participants also recognized that pricing is but one tool to change behaviour; others, such as stewardship programs, also induce behavioural change. Having a suite of policy instruments is necessary in water management as the issues will vary from region to region. The instruments being applied should fit the problem.

» WATER PRICING HAS REAL POTENTIAL AS A WATER MANAGEMENT TOOL BUT NEEDS FURTHER INVESTIGATION

The NRT’s recommendation to investigate the use of water pricing scenarios on a watershed and/or firm basis was strongly supported. The modelling was heralded as a good and important first attempt; however, the conclusions were directional. To further advance water pricing as a viable option it will first be necessary to refine definitions of water use and then to integrate information about the unique features and uses of the natural resource sectors. These definitions and information can then be used to inform the actual design of pricing policies and water conservation and management policies.

» NOTED CHALLENGE

The biggest challenge facing the implementation of the recommendations on water pricing is that we simply do not yet have the capacity in place — intellectually and institutionally — to move forward briskly. We need to develop the analytic capacity (modelling, framework, forecasting), and understand how water pricing could impact industries and firms. One suggestion for addressing the deficiency was to undertake specific case studies in watersheds that are already stressed to investigate what the impact of markets and/or pricing might be. Related to this, the scope, depth, and nature of the data currently available is likely insufficient to advance water pricing policies in the immediate future. The analytical modelling is only as good as the data that is used, and this needs to be improved to achieve more accurate and reliable results.

COLLABORATIVE WATER GOVERNANCE

Collaborative water governance is happening across Canada more than ever. It is here to stay because

• people understand the importance of working together, to ensure sustainable management of our resources, and in doing so maximize benefits and minimize costs;
• multi-disciplinary and multi-interest approaches are necessary because of the complexity of resource management issues;
• it reduces potential for conflict later and promotes more harmonious communities; and
• it enhances trust among water resource users.

The discussion of collaborative water governance validated and reinforced the NRT’s recommendations. Participants noted that all four recommendations are essential for collaborative water governance to work. They are not mutually exclusive; rather they are interrelated and must be implemented in parallel. Two key themes arose from the discussions:

• collaborative water governance works at the strategic level
• governance is a shared responsibility and stakeholders other than government will need to help implement the recommendations

» COLLABORATIVE WATER GOVERNANCE WORKS AT THE STRATEGIC LEVEL

Collaborative processes should be used for strategic-level matters such as assessing, planning, and developing water strategies at the watershed level. The Forum affirmed the NRT’s conclusion that collaborative water governance processes work when requiring input from multiple stakeholders into decision making on “big picture” or strategic issues. This reinforced our finding that it is not an appropriate approach for all water-related decisions: for example, it is not necessarily a tool for project-specific decisions requiring clearly legislated decisions such as regulatory approvals.

» GOVERNANCE IS A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY AND STAKEHOLDERS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT WILL NEED TO HELP IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS

Participants recognized that in many regions, governments are not in a financial position to lead collaborative water governance processes. Significant cuts to key ministries responsible for water would have enormous implications for this approach. Therefore non-government entities are stepping in to lead the way. Participants suggested that even if governments cannot lead, they could assist by changing the water governance frameworks, removing some of the institutional barriers to collaborative water governance approaches. Water governance and management includes a big responsibility for other stakeholders to step up: industry clearly will if the right incentives and conditions are in place.

» NOTED CHALLENGE

Collaborative water governance approaches by definition means shared responsibility. The main concern with these processes centres on the possibility that “shared responsibility” is “no responsibility.” Forum participants were challenged to figure out how to overcome this key issue. They suggested that despite this challenge, a movement toward collaborative water governance that puts the responsibility of water management into the hands of collaborative multi-stakeholder groups is still a good step in the right direction.