Water 2100

Systemic challenges

Nine systemic challenges in the water–land system, drawn from what the Think Tank has written and said in mapping it. Each is named as a single idea, with an account of what sits behind it. A systemic challenge is not something going wrong once: it recurs, it shows up in more than one place, and it crosses the people and the layers of the system.

[1]

Trust

Infrastructural, Institutional · 5 notes

Lack of trust came up as pervasive. From households to institutions and water companies, and between the organisations that are meant to work together. People said information often reaches the public through pressure groups and the media rather than through institutions, and that trust has to be rebuilt through evidence, data and storytelling, not only performance. The Institutional group asked whether we have the right institutions to run the system with trust at all.

Trust among actors: evidence, data, storytelling.Lack of trust in institutions. Pervasive.Do we have the right institutions to operate the system with trust?
All 5 notes, as written
  • InfraSystemic challenge: TRUST AMONG ACTORS — evidence, data, storytelling
  • InstLack of trust in institutions. Pervasive
  • InstLack of trust – institutions
  • InstDo we have the right institutions to operate the system with trust?
  • InfraBehavioural & social sciences behind the change needed & issue with lack of trust in water companies
[2]

Fragmentation

Infrastructural, Institutional · 6 notes

Evidence, funding, regulation and accountability are split up, both across scales (national, regional, local plans) and across sectors. Implementation can fall into the gaps between them. The story told from the top is siloed and politicised, and there are many partial and contradictory ways of framing the land–water system. Few people look at root causes across the whole system when something fails.

Narrative from the top. Siloed, politicised, fragmented.Multiple and contradictory framings of land–water systems.Limited analysis of whole-system root causes of failure.
All 6 notes, as written
  • InfraFRAGMENTATION — evidence — funding — regulatory framework — drivers — accountability
  • InfraFragmentation across scale (national / regional / plans) and across sectors; implementation falls in between
  • InstNarrative from the top. Siloed, politicised, fragmented
  • InstMultiple & partial narratives about water & analysis of issues.
  • InstMultiple & contradictory framings of land–water system(s)
  • InstLimited analysis of whole system root causes of failure
[3]

What value means

Biophysical, Infrastructural · 4 notes

There is no shared understanding of what the system is for, or of the value of joining it up. Costs are well understood; benefits are not, and actors do not agree on them. Value also means different things to different people, and changes over time. Water lacks legitimacy in land decisions and in public perception, so its value is easy to overlook.

How do you maximise ‘value’ when you can’t define it or understand how it might change for each person?Not enough agreement on value of benefits for actors.
All 4 notes, as written
  • InfraSHARED VISION — common understanding — water + land system — long term planning — Singapore — multi-beneficial ↳ value — strategy
  • InfraNOT ENOUGH AGREEMENT ON VALUE OF BENEFITS FOR ACTORS
  • BioHow do you maximise ‘value’ when you can’t define it or understand how it might change for each person
  • InfraLack of legitimacy of water in land decisions & public perception — water neutrality — implementation
[4]

Where investment goes

Institutional, Infrastructural · 3 notes

Investment flows to part of the system, through the water industry and its customers, and favours hard infrastructure with a measurable return. Upstream, cultural and health benefits are harder to fund. Behind this sit the funding and financing arrangements themselves, and a preference for certainty that keeps money in silos rather than systems.

Investment limited to part of the system: the water industry customer.Investment focused on concrete: silos not systems.
All 3 notes, as written
  • InstInvestment limited to part of the system – water industry customer
  • InstInvestment focused on concrete – silos not systems – certainty – trust – experience
  • InfraINVESTMENT — funding and financing arrangement
[5]

Moving fast enough

Biophysical, Infrastructural · 5 notes

The members asked whether a complex system can move as fast as the climate drivers require, when political timeframes are too short for long-term infrastructure. Plans, laws and policies that have been agreed are not implemented. The Water White Paper was named twice: for lacking the evidence behind its ambitions, and for lacking a plan for how the transition happens.

Can the system move as fast as the climate drivers suggest we will need to, especially with uncertainty?The political timeframes limit ability to address long-term infrastructure challenges.
All 5 notes, as written
  • BioCan the system move as fast as the Climate drivers suggest we will need to, especially with uncertainty
  • InfraSYSTEMIC CHALLENGE — implementation of agreed plans / laws / policies
  • InfraWATER WHITE PAPER — lacking an implementation plan for a water transition
  • InfraWATER WHITE PAPER — lacks evidence to support claims & ambitions
  • BioThe political timeframes limit ability to address long-term infrastructure challenges
[6]

How far to intervene

Biophysical, Infrastructural · 8 notes

Hard engineering can do a great deal, but at a cost, and natural systems may not sustain rising abstraction as rainfall and soils change. Members asked how much we are prepared to engineer catchments to behave in a particular way, how to balance food, housing and the built environment against the hydrological system, and whether spatial planning can do that job. Decentralised options such as rainwater harvesting and reuse are still untested at scale in the UK.

How far can hard engineering take us, and at what cost?How much can we do to break this link?Spatial planning. Can it work?
All 8 notes, as written
  • BioHow much are we prepared to intervene to make catchments work in a particular way?
  • BioHow far can hard engineering take us, and at what cost?
  • BioHow much can we do to break this link? Increasing abstraction can’t be sustained by natural environment with changing biophysics (erosion / less rainfall)
  • BioHow far can we engineer nature in a catchment to relieve water pressures?
  • InfraTesting decen. measure in UK context — RWH, recycling, reuse — local initiatives
  • InfraCompeting needs & uses — responsibly pollution pressure — trade-offs / co-benefits
  • BioSpatial Planning. Can it work?
  • BioBalancing impact of land use (food production, built environment, housing) on the hydrological system
[7]

The role of the citizen

Infrastructural, Institutional · 4 notes

People are asked to pay now for outcomes decades away, with little evidence that things will improve. Public expectations and willingness to pay do not match. Households are framed as consumers and bill-payers rather than citizens, which leaves them little way to act, and the conversation tends towards blame. Access to water is unequal too, including for people with physical or sensory impairments.

Willingness to pay by citizens: trust and evidence that things will improve.How do we move from blame to positive action to improve outcomes for land and water?
All 4 notes, as written
  • InfraWillingness to pay by citizens — national scale — trust & evidence that things will improve + communication
  • InstMismatch between public expectations & willingness to pay (water bills)
  • InstHow do we move from blame to +ve action to improve outcomes for L-W?
  • InfraAccessible water — physical (ableness?) — sensory impairments — socio-cultural infrastructure (changing in public?)
[8]

Shifting baselines

Biophysical, Infrastructural · 7 notes

The future is uncertain in ways that matter for planning: weather, ecology, demand and politics in 2100 cannot be known. Standards and regulation assume a stable baseline that no longer exists. Pipes, flood banks and other ageing assets were built for a different climate. The question is how to manage an uncertain future ecology, not only how to make today’s system more resilient.

Shifting baselines: governance models are becoming increasingly difficult to manage.How vulnerable is our built environment to weather in a changed climate?
All 7 notes, as written
  • BioSHIFTING BASELINES — governance models are becoming increasingly difficult to manage (regulate with standards) due to shifting bio-physical landscape
  • BioHow does shifting climates impact the bio-physical environment? (i.e. marine life, biodiversity)
  • BioHow do you manage and enable an uncertain future ecology through eg: regulatory, engineering levers?
  • InfraUncertainty in what will happen — beyond nat. level
  • BioPredicted weather models for 2100 that work off some assumptions?
  • BioHow vulnerable is our built env’t to weather in a changed climate (pipes, flood banks)
  • InfraAsset health & ageing infrastructure — not only water — link with retrofit — installation challenges — speed of development
[9]

Who holds power

Infrastructural, Institutional · 3 notes

Power is uneven and shifts between regulators, water companies and farmers, who have a strong lobby. The system benefits some people more than others. At the coast, where many responsibilities meet, it is easy for everyone to say it is not their problem. The question underneath is who has the power to change things.

Asymmetric power relationships.This system benefits (some) people but not equally.Security? Power to change.
All 3 notes, as written
  • InfraAsymmetric power relationships — regulators vs. water companies — farmers have a strong lobby
  • InstThis system benefits (some) people but not equally. 'Equality' 'Inclusion' 'fairness'
  • InstSecurity? Help / pressure. Power to change
[*]How the nine were made

The Think Tank mapped the water–land system in three layers (the natural world, the built environment, the rules and the money) and marked where the system pulls against itself. 45 challenges were written down. The test for a systemic challenge: it shows up in more than one place, it recurs rather than happening once, it crosses actors and layers, and it is not a symptom. Applied across the three layers, the 45 fold into nine. Each card opens to the wording as it was written, so the synthesis can be checked against its source. The full list is below.

The grouping is tested as the work goes on, and the Think Tank takes one challenge forward at a time. That choice, and the reasoning behind it, will appear here.

All 45, as written

Three groups mapped the system, each starting from one layer of it and going wherever that led. Each line is one challenge in the words it was written in. The tag says which of the nine it feeds.

The group that started from Biophysical 14 notessee the map →

  1. Can the system move as fast as the Climate drivers suggest we will need to, especially with uncertainty[5]
  2. Predicted weather models for 2100 that work off some assumptions?[8]
  3. Spatial Planning. Can it work?[6]
  4. Balancing impact of land use (food production, built environment, housing) on the hydrological system[6]
  5. The political timeframes limit ability to address long-term infrastructure challenges[5]
  6. How do you maximise ‘value’ when you can’t define it or understand how it might change for each person[3]
  7. How much are we prepared to intervene to make catchments work in a particular way?[6]
  8. How far can hard engineering take us, and at what cost?[6]
  9. How much can we do to break this link? Increasing abstraction can’t be sustained by natural environment with changing biophysics (erosion / less rainfall)[6]
  10. How vulnerable is our built env’t to weather in a changed climate (pipes, flood banks)[8]
  11. SHIFTING BASELINES — governance models are becoming increasingly difficult to manage (regulate with standards) due to shifting bio-physical landscape[8]
  12. How does shifting climates impact the bio-physical environment? (i.e. marine life, biodiversity)[8]
  13. How do you manage and enable an uncertain future ecology through eg: regulatory, engineering levers?[8]
  14. How far can we engineer nature in a catchment to relieve water pressures?[6]

The group that started from Infrastructural 18 notessee the map →

  1. WATER WHITE PAPER — lacks evidence to support claims & ambitions[5]
  2. SYSTEMIC CHALLENGE — implementation of agreed plans / laws / policies[5]
  3. Uncertainty in what will happen — beyond nat. level[8]
  4. NOT ENOUGH AGREEMENT ON VALUE OF BENEFITS FOR ACTORS[3]
  5. WATER WHITE PAPER — lacking an implementation plan for a water transition[5]
  6. SHARED VISION — common understanding — water + land system — long term planning — Singapore — multi-beneficial ↳ value — strategy[3]
  7. Systemic challenge: TRUST AMONG ACTORS — evidence, data, storytelling[1]
  8. FRAGMENTATION — evidence — funding — regulatory framework — drivers — accountability[2]
  9. Fragmentation across scale (national / regional / plans) and across sectors; implementation falls in between[2]
  10. Lack of legitimacy of water in land decisions & public perception — water neutrality — implementation[3]
  11. Asymmetric power relationships — regulators vs. water companies — farmers have a strong lobby[9]
  12. Willingness to pay by citizens — national scale — trust & evidence that things will improve + communication[7]
  13. Behavioural & social sciences behind the change needed & issue with lack of trust in water companies[1]
  14. Competing needs & uses — responsibly pollution pressure — trade-offs / co-benefits[6]
  15. Accessible water — physical (ableness?) — sensory impairments — socio-cultural infrastructure (changing in public?)[7]
  16. Testing decen. measure in UK context — RWH, recycling, reuse — local initiatives[6]
  17. Asset health & ageing infrastructure — not only water — link with retrofit — installation challenges — speed of development[8]
  18. INVESTMENT — funding and financing arrangement[4]

The group that started from Institutional 13 notessee the map →

  1. Do we have the right institutions to operate the system with trust?[1]
  2. Narrative from the top. Siloed, politicised, fragmented[2]
  3. Mismatch between public expectations & willingness to pay (water bills)[7]
  4. Lack of trust in institutions. Pervasive[1]
  5. Investment limited to part of the system – water industry customer[4]
  6. Investment focused on concrete – silos not systems – certainty – trust – experience[4]
  7. Limited analysis of whole system root causes of failure[2]
  8. Multiple & partial narratives about water & analysis of issues.[2]
  9. Multiple & contradictory framings of land–water system(s)[2]
  10. This system benefits (some) people but not equally. 'Equality' 'Inclusion' 'fairness'[9]
  11. How do we move from blame to +ve action to improve outcomes for L-W?[7]
  12. Security? Help / pressure. Power to change[9]
  13. Lack of trust – institutions[1]
[*]Missing evidence

Alongside the challenges, the mapping named what nobody has looked at, or has looked at and found little. Those evidence requests sit with the evidence itself, in the evidence repository, as the list of where new research needs to be commissioned.