Cross case study analysis

Four case studies were identified in Portugal, as presented in section 3.5.1.2 and Table 3-5. The common feature of all the case studies is integrated water management. They all deal with water resources demands at a local river basin level. All case studies involve the participation of local stakeholders and citizens, their use of water and control over pollution.

From the case study interviews, collaboration reinforcement between BDAs and stakeholders is said to be highly important. However, it was stated that to gain stakeholders’ trust it is crucial to implement the conclusions from their collaboration and provide more information on RBM issues.

Interviewees stressed that BDAs should be the leaders in conflicts solutions. Arranging different consultation meetings for each group of stakeholders was said to allow the use of language adapted to the level of perception of each group on RBM issues. This can enhance their interest in being part of the search for a solution to problems.

It was reported recently that municipalities faced a reduction in their autonomy. Conversely, interviewee from CS 4 stated that a recent huge investment in RBM systems in Portugal has not had the desired effect on managers who need to control and survey those stakeholders who pollute the water system. Therefore, these are urgent issues that need to be handled. Water supply and pollution prevention and remediation should be the most important factors to be fulfilled, as he said.

Table 4-15 presents, for each case study, the outcome from case study documents, the outcome from Case Study interview, the discussion and the contribution to the main question of this study.

Case Study Outcome from CS documents

Outcome from interview ( as

in the “rich picture”) Discussion

Contribution to main question of the study

CS1 (Ave)

Weak and unfeasible responses to past enquiries.

Lack of data on:

• Collaboration between the CS Managing Body and State Offices;

• Recent participation of local stakeholders associations.

Some questions arose about local municipality participation in the Managing Body of CS 1.

Lack of information to citizens only during local consultation for the Basin Plans or on some specific issues of RBM in local newspapers & monthly information sent to stakeholders;

Some gaps on relationship with BDA: lack of actions and few meetings to discuss and solve pollution problems reported by CS1 Managing Body (CS1 MB / CS manager identifies illegal wastewater discharges, informs the BDA but they do not take any actions to solve the problem; CS1 MB is not represented in the Basin District Council though without active involvement with it.

CS1 manager stated a good relationship with the related BDA. However, he identified relevant gaps as;

Meetings between the CS1 manager and the related BDA are scarce and solutions and required actions implementation for river pollution remediation are not discussed nor implemented.

Highlights the level of information and knowledge of RBM issues, provided to citizens and stakeholders which remains scarce;

Highlight the nature of gaps in the participation relationship between the CS1 Management Body and the related BDA.

CS 2 (Carvoeiro

/ Vouga)

Weak and unfeasible responses to past enquiries.

Lack of data on:

• Collaboration between the CS Managing Body and State Offices; • Recent participation of local stakeholders associations; • Local municipality participation in the Managing Body of CS 2.

Common concerns for all stakeholders and high participation lead to a solution provided by one of the groups;

Local municipalities wish to have a unique managing body for water supply and wastewater;

Same issues about citizens information as for CS1;

Same gaps in relationship with BDA as for CS 1 (with a different BDA);

CS1 MB not represented in Basin District Council.

CS2 manager presented some contradiction. He stated that there were good and transparent relationships with the related BDA. However, he pointed out the lack of interaction between BDA and the CS2 manager to discuss measures and

programme actions necessary.

The same as for the CS1 (plus lack of compromise from BDA to discuss & implement measures to solve identified illegal wastewater discharges);

The finding that when there is a relevant common concern among all stakeholders there are no conflicts but a joint collaboration and commitment to find a solution.

Case Study Outcome from CS documents

Outcome from interview ( as

in the “rich picture”) Discussion question of the study Contribution to main

CS 3 (Cascais / Guia)

There were no documents available except information on the website of the CS 3 Managing Body ( System’s characteristics and connection of CS Management Body with municipalities served by the system);

Lack of data about participatory events.

Different consultation meetings were held for each group of stakeholders (with different perceptions about the system); Meetings support materials and language used were simple and suitable for each group;

School environmental education also benefits families knowledge on RB issues; Citizens still have poor perception of RBM issues and need to be motivated to participate more;

Long negotiations with municipalities served by the CS 3 System.

The interviewee stated that municipalities had collaborated. However, he reported the long & difficult negotiations with municipalities to reach consensus on several interests;

Different consultation meetings for each group of stakeholders were held based on their different perceptions about the system; this allowed the use of

support materials and

appropriate language for their understanding of issues; this proved to be a positive strategy.

Careful planning of participation meetings provide solutions comprehension and acceptance by people, solving conflicts; Municipalities fear losing their

autonomy when being

controlled and when new water systems aggregate two or more municipalities;

Stakeholders’ salience is connected with their economic capacity or politic issues.

CS 4 (West Region)

Lack of data on pig rearing installations located in the region; Data available (collected by different State Offices) is inconsistent or is no compatible; An enterprise was created to work on the CS solution, with stakeholders collaboration.

Consultation meetings with local municipalities for solutions analysis and discussion;

Additional meetings with stakeholders representatives to show benefits of integrated solutions;

Positive final outcome, due to stakeholders engagement;

Remaining problems on costs handling, due to some installations not connected to the system.

Inconsistency on data collection does not enable requisite knowledge of those installations; The interviewee stated that it proved to be a positive involvement with stakeholders because it led to the construction of a wastewater treatment plant

as a consequence of

stakeholders’ engagement & participation; however, more work is needed to engage those resisting installations.

Stakeholders’ engagement in participation is crucial to the discussion of solutions, understanding of differing viewpoints, conflicts resolution, integrated solutions definition

and their successful

Fig 4.12 summarises the case studies findings discussion, highlighting that case study 3 was the most successful, followed by the case study 4, due to the great efforts made by these case studies manager to promote stakeholder engagement.

Fig. 4-12 Summary of case studies findings discussion

It was reported by the interviewee of case studies 3 and 4 that participatory meetings were carefully prepared to provide support materials and language suitable for the stakeholders’ level of knowledge. Furthermore, it was stated that the proposed solutions and all issues related to them were always clearly explained and discussed with the attendees. The interviewee also highlighted that several participatory meetings were held. Each of them was targeted at a specific group of stakeholders and the language used was expected to be clearly understood by those attending.

Cross case study analysis led to the following final findings:

 Case studies are at local level, so should have higher participation due to their interest for local stakeholders;

 Local stakeholders have poor knowledge of CSs and RBM issues and would benefit from separate information meetings suited to each group;

 Increased knowledge of CSs and RBM issues could increase peoples’ engagement in participation;

 Case studies are in the context of RBM although under managers’ actions (at national and local level), national laws and European Directives.

The case study interviews documented the position of their systems’ managers but not the stakeholders’ point of view. Therefore, this provided the rationale for conducting expert interviews to

 Reinforce CSs interviews;

 Highlight the point of view of national managers

 Highlight the point of view of stakeholders groups

 Find the degree of their engagement.

For this purpose, expert interviews with other case study stakeholders and with general stakeholders were pursued.

4.3. Expert interviews

Expert interviews were conducted to reinforce case studies interviews, to introduce the view point of important stakeholders as part of participation involvement. Additionally, the expert interviews were aimed at discovering the degree of engagement by stakeholders in participation. The case studies present set the context of pollution removal, integrated water supply, wastewater collection and treatment, whereas the expert interviews establish the stakeholders’ viewpoints on the contextual issues.

The next sections present the expert interviews, the coding prepared using NVivo 10, the summarised tables, the rich pictures and the experts’ findings.