{"id":713,"date":"2011-07-11T08:18:36","date_gmt":"2011-07-11T08:18:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lancaster.ac.uk\/lec\/sites\/catchmentchange\/?p=713"},"modified":"2019-05-01T13:49:40","modified_gmt":"2019-05-01T13:49:40","slug":"where-are-the-guidelines-for-the-participatory-process","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lancaster.ac.uk\/lec\/sites\/catchmentchange\/news\/where-are-the-guidelines-for-the-participatory-process\/","title":{"rendered":"Where are the Guidelines for the Participatory Process?"},"content":{"rendered":"
Reflections on the 2nd<\/sup> Annual Meeting of CCN<\/h5>\n

 <\/p>\n

The 2nd<\/sup> Annual Meeting of CCN was held under the title \u201cGuidelines for Good Practice as a way of encouraging stakeholder involvement across catchment management\u201d at the Arup Campus, Solihull.\u00a0\u00a0 It provided an excellent set of talks and
\ndiscussions which may be found at (see ).\u00a0\u00a0 And it made me think\u2026.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

When reflecting some years ago on how to introduce more realistic assessments of uncertainty into flood risk management, the concept of Guidelines for Good Practice seemed to be a sensible way of introducing a framework for allowing for the subjectivity inherent in representing different sources of uncertainty.\u00a0\u00a0 Structuring such guidelines as a set of decisions, where different degrees of effort might be invoked for different types of application is also a sensible way of allowing for proportionality and lack of knowledge in uncertainty assessments. \u00a0\u00a0Such decisions would need to be agreed between analyst and users or stakeholders and this seemed to me to be a useful structure for agreeing assumptions, communicating the meaning of uncertainty assessments, and providing an audit trail for later evaluation and revisions.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

This still seems fine, but also too simplistic.\u00a0 It was intended to provide a structure that decides on how uncertainties can be handled in a scientific assessment (originally in flood risk management).\u00a0 It was not intended as a guide as to HOW to manage user or stakeholder involvement.\u00a0\u00a0 It already assumes that it is possible for the stakeholders to come to a sensible agreement about those many and different decisions in the analysis process. This would then seem to demand a different form of Guideline document to guide Good Practice involving stakeholders in the process.\u00a0\u00a0 Many of the talks at the CCN meeting were about this:\u00a0 posing questions about how to do it, reflecting on experience of trying to do it, discussing the issues that it raises when many different groups and levels of stakeholders (\u201cemotive\u201d \/ \u201cinstitutional\u201d \/ \u201cfinancial\u201d ; organised \/ disorganised; \u2026.).\u00a0 These issues are common to all the focus areas of CCN.\u00a0\u00a0They are even incorporated into practice in the form of the Water Framework and Floods Directives.\u00a0 It would therefore seem worthwhile to consider whether it might be possible to produce a Guideline for Good Practice document for stakeholder involvement and the participatory process that would be relevant across the focus areas.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A good topic for a future CCN workshop at least \u2013 but given all the experience of doing stakeholder involvement already, some guidance should already exist, should it not?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Any suggestions from the community out there about where to look? Or about what works and what doesn\u2019t?\u00a0\u00a0 Or whether developing such a guidance process might be worthwhile or not?\u00a0\u00a0 Any suggestions or comments (to ) welcome!<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

  There is nothing you write essay can say can make that right <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Reflections on the 2nd Annual Meeting of CCN   The 2nd Annual Meeting of CCN was held under the title \u201cGuidelines for Good Practice as a way of encouraging stakeholder involvement across catchment management\u201d at the Arup Campus, Solihull.\u00a0\u00a0 It provided an excellent set of talks and discussions which may be found at (see ).\u00a0\u00a0 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":50,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-713","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lancaster.ac.uk\/lec\/sites\/catchmentchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/713","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lancaster.ac.uk\/lec\/sites\/catchmentchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lancaster.ac.uk\/lec\/sites\/catchmentchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lancaster.ac.uk\/lec\/sites\/catchmentchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/50"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lancaster.ac.uk\/lec\/sites\/catchmentchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=713"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/www.lancaster.ac.uk\/lec\/sites\/catchmentchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/713\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8568,"href":"https:\/\/www.lancaster.ac.uk\/lec\/sites\/catchmentchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/713\/revisions\/8568"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lancaster.ac.uk\/lec\/sites\/catchmentchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=713"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lancaster.ac.uk\/lec\/sites\/catchmentchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=713"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lancaster.ac.uk\/lec\/sites\/catchmentchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=713"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}