Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only. Not for reproduction or distribution or commercial use.

This article was originally published by IWA Publishing. IWA Publishing recognizes the retention of the right by the author(s) to photocopy or make single electronic

copies of the paper for their own personal use, including for their own classroom use, or the personal use of colleagues, provided the copies are not offered for sale and

are not distributed in a systematic way outside of their employing institution.

Please note that you are not permitted to post the IWA Publishing PDF version of your paper on your own website or your institution’s website or repository.

Please direct any queries regarding use or permissions to wst@iwap.co.uk

Building ‘learning catchments’ for integrated catchment

managing: designing learning systems based on

experiences in the UK and South Africa

Kevin Collins, John Colvin and Ray Ison

ABSTRACT

Kevin Collins

Ray Ison

Open Systems Research Group,

Communication and Systems Department,

Faculty of Maths,

Computing and Technology,

Open University,

Walton Hall,

Milton Keynes MK7 6AA,

UK

E-mail: k.b.collins@open.ac.uk;

r.l.ison@open.ac.uk

John Colvin

Strategy Unit, Research and Enterprise Office,

Open University,

Milton Keynes MK7 6AA,

UK

E-mail: j.d.colvin@open.ac.uk

We examine challenges and opportunities for developing ‘learning systems’ for integrated

catchment managing (ICMg) drawing on our experiences in two contexts: UK and South Africa

(SA). Our research question is: what is it that we would have to experience to claim that a

catchment was a learning catchment? We suggest that any valid answer to this question will

arise in social relations in context-determined ways. From this perspective ICMg is an emergent

‘performance’ of stakeholders engaged in mutual action, or social learning (SL), in which

understandings and practices are transformed in situation improving ways. These questions are

relevant given recent reviews suggesting that implementation of the European Water Framework

Directive (WFD) is not nurturing adaptive management. Our European and SA experiences

demonstrate that it is possible to invest in social learning as a governance mechanism for water

managing, but key constraints exist. Our SA work based on (i) appreciating the situation,

especially the history, and (ii) contextual appreciation and design of learning systems (as a result

of (i)) is described in response to these constraints. We conclude that more attention on

developing an effective praxis for ICMg is required.

Key words | capability building, emergence, integrated catchment managing, learning system,

social learning

INTRODUCTION

In this paper we examine challenges and opportunities for

developing learning systems for integrated catchment

managing (ICMg) based on experiences in two different

contexts: the UK and South Africa (SA). A starting point for

our research is the question: what is it that we would have

to experience to claim that a catchment was a learning

catchment? We will argue that any valid answer to this

question will arise in social relations in context-determined

ways and that the same rationale applies if the question

posed is: what it is that we would have to experience if we

were to claim we had experienced ICMg? From this

perspective ICMg is an emergent ‘performance’ of stake-

holders engaged in mutual action, or social learning, in

which understandings and practices are transformed

in situation improving ways. This is distinct from notions

of integrated catchment management (ICM) with the

implicit assumption that there are a set of known practices,

knowledges and skills that can be learned and transferred to

address catchment issues in different contexts.

The research questions we identify are relevant given

recent reviews suggesting the European Water Framework

Directive (WFD) (CEC 2000) is ‘far from nurturing a more

adaptive management approach as a way to tackle

uncertainty and change, and as a way to enhance the

resilience of freshwater systems’ (Galaz 2005, p. 9). The EU’s

own review of institutional arrangements for implementing

the WFD concluded that ‘although most of the adminis-

trative arrangements appear capable of ensuring proper

doi: 10.2166/wst.2009.889

687 Q IWA Publishing 2009 Water Science & Technology—WST | 59.4 | 2009

implementation, actual performance will only become

evident in practice over the coming years’ (CEC 2007, p. 6).

Based on European, South African, and also informed

by our Australian study, we argue that ‘administrative

arrangements’ though necessary are not sufficient to

create the conditions for ICMg. A major deficiency in

WFD implementation appears to be that of capacity and

capability building for ICMg i.e. a weakness of praxis,

or theory informed action. Our recent work exemplifies an

alternative approach based on ‘learning system’ design and

capability development. In this paper we draw primarily

on work in progress in the UK and SA which is enacting

praxis based on designs informed by earlier research

(SLIM 2004a; Collins et al. 2005; Blackmore et al. 2007;

Colvin et al. 2008).

METHODS

Our research is built upon certain theoretical understand-

ings which are not yet widely appreciated within the

‘natural and engineering sciences’. This has major

mplications for research design and methods. The first

departure point concerns how knowledge is constructed

(i.e. epistemology). In Figure 1 the area (a) on the left side of

the diagram describes what has been the historical and

dominant understanding of how knowledge is understood

and how this gives rise to particular governance mechan-

isms in environmental and natural resource management

(e.g. regulation). Figure 1 contrasts the traditional

approach, based on a fixed form of knowledge, with that

of ‘social learning’ depicted in area (b). Social learning,

understood as concerted action among stakeholders in

complex and uncertain situations (such as water catch-

ments), is based on the process of socially constructing

an issue i.e. knowledge construction by actors or stake-

holders in which their understandings and practices change

so as to transform the situation of concern (Figure 2a).

The theoretical and empirical evidence for this work can be

found in a recent special issue of Environmental Science

and Policy (Blackmore et al. 2007) based on SLIM (2004a).

Within a social learning paradigm a priority in research

practice is to know how to create the circumstances for

social learning to occur. This can be described as ‘design’

research where design is concerned with a process, rather

than with a blueprint or model, and where the output can be

conceptualised as a learning system (see Ison et al. 2007b).

As outlined by Ison et al. (2007b) the design of a learning

system might seemingly involve combining elements and

processes in some interconnected way as well as specifying

some boundary conditions—what is in, what is out—for the

purpose of learning. But this is a first-order perspective

resulting in the specification of learning outcomes in

the absence of any real contextual understanding about

learners. Blackmore (2005), reviewing claims that appreci-

ative systems (sensu3 e.g. Vickers 1983) are learning

systems, suggests something more organic and observer

dependent. This perspective invites inquiry in terms of: ‘let

us consider this situation as if it were a learning system’, or,

in Vickers’ terms: ‘I have found it useful to think of my life’s

work in terms of appreciative systems’. With this shift,

a ‘learning system’ changes from some-thing having a clear

ontological status (e.g. this specification, this course) to

becoming an epistemic device, a way of knowing and doing.

Reflecting this turn, Ison & Russell (2000) suggest it is a

first-order logic that makes it possible to speak about, and

act purposefully to design or model a ‘learning system’.

In contrast, a second-order logic appreciates the limitations

of the first-order position and leads to the claim that

a ‘learning system’ exists when it has been experienced

through participation in the activities in which the thinking

and techniques of the design or model are enacted

and embodied. An implication of this logic is that a

Figure 1 | Policy coordination mechanisms compared: (a) the current paradigm

of environmental management comprising hierarchy and the market used

to address pre-determined environmental problems based on a fixed form

of knowledge; and (b) social learning for concerted action based on the

process of knowing (Source: Ison et al. 2007a).

688 K. Collins et al. | Learning systems in integrated catchment management Water Science & Technology—WST | 59.4 | 2009

‘learning system’ can only ever be said to exist after

its enactment—that is on reflection. The second-order pers-

pective is not a negation of the first—they can be understood

as a duality (comprising a whole).

The research reported here is based on two research

settings: (i) two years of co-research with scientists

concerned with ‘integrated catchment science’ in England

& Wales (Collins & Ison 2007); and (ii) two years of activity,

which is ongoing, in SA where the design to date has

focused on three distinct stages, described below (Colvin

et al. 2008). The findings are also informed by a desk study

of the complexity of institutional arrangements for catch-

ment managing in Australia (Godden & Ison 2007). Because

our research is as much about methodology as situation, we

discuss what was done, and why in the two research

settings, in the next section.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Doing integrated catchment science: UK

Within the EA (Environment Agency, the main environ-

mental regulatory body for England & Wales), the WFD

has increasingly come to dominate the water and land

management science agenda and is a principal driver in

efforts for more integrated approaches. We have spent

two years in a co-researching process designed to create

the circumstances for a community of practice (CoP;

Wenger 1998) in Integrated Catchment Science (ICS)

to emerge. A particular feature of this work has been the

use of systems thinking to promote and inform the work of

the CoP in determining the EA’s ICS strategy. We did this

because we found the evolving practice of the ICS CoP to be

constrained by the lack of a common conceptual framing of

integrated catchment management (ICM) within the CoP,

the EA and beyond at national and international levels. Our

approach (learning system design) involved a series

of workshops in 2006 and 2007 using systems approaches

(see Checkland & Scholes 1999; Ison 2008) to help develop

the conceptual thinking about the nature of ICS. Rather

than attempting to define and pre-determine the direction

and outcomes of the work, our methodological approach

was rooted in trusting the systemic notion of emergence.

Through the use of systems diagramming techniques

(see Open University 2002), three closely related insights

emerged: i) ICS as an organising notion is meaningless

without reference to an agreed purpose in context;

ii) purpose can be determined by reference to policy; and

iii) integration of catchment sciences is possible at the level

of policy objectives rather than at the level of scientific

disciplines and research findings.

The emergent learning about the nature of ICS through

systemic diagramming techniques represents a significant

Figure 2 | (a) Situations of complexity, uncertainty, and conflict associated with water management are transformed through concerted action by stakeholders, who build their

stakeholding in the process. This leads to changed understandings, i.e., knowledge in action, and practices. (b) In the SLIM (Social Learning for the Integrated Management

and sustainable use of water) research, we have been concerned in particular with how six variables interact and are mediated by learning processes to shape issues and

transform particular situations. These variables include history, stakeholding, facilitation, institutions and policies, and ecological constraints (Source: SLIM 2004a; Ison &

Watson 2007).

689 K. Collins et al. | Learning systems in integrated catchment management Water Science & Technology—WST | 59.4 | 2009

development in the thinking of the CoP about its own work.

The approach developed by the CoP and the commitment

to trusting emergence runs counter to the experiences

of most management protocols and is not without problems

within organisational settings (Collins & Ison 2007). What

is clear, however, is that ICM can never be a blueprint

independent of context and some of the ‘variables’ depicted

in Figure 2a. Our experience also suggests that it is futile to

imagine that scientific findings can define what ICM is;

we suggest instead that scientific explanations, and thus

scientists, have much to contribute to developing a praxis

for ICMg, seen as a process of managing for emergence.

We further claim that we are still a long way from

experiencing the interplay between human activity and

biophysical processes that would lead us to describe

catchments as learning catchments.

Building capacity for co-operative governance: South

Africa

A major deficiency in implementation of ICM-like policies

in Europe (the WFD), SA and Australia appears to be that

of capacity and capability building for ICMg (SLIM 2004b).

This is an issue that our research is addressing. Stimulated

by experiences of working on capacity building issues in the

England and Wales context—particularly the shared EA-OU

experience of working with both institutional opportunities

and barriers—our work in SA takes a novel approach to

‘learning system’ design and capability development. The

approach involves:

(i) appreciating the situation, especially the history

(see Figure 2a). During an initial 18-month phase

(April 05 to December 06) this involved (a) building

understanding of the SA context for water managing

by directly engaging with the ‘water system’ at

a number of different levels namely: national water

(resources and services) policy; regional water

resources policy implementation; sub-regional (river

basin) water resources policy implementation;

municipal water services implementation; research

with local communities on water for productive

use and (b) engagement that was experimental and

took the form either of interviews, study tours or

action/social learning workshops;

(ii) ‘learning system design’ based on contextual appreci-

ation—as a result of the first phase a view could be

formed of which types of capacity building interven-

tions worked best at different ‘levels’ of engagement

and with different groups of beneficiaries. It also

became clear that in terms of institutional capacity

building across the whole ‘water system’ in SA,

engaging at different geographical levels, and making

connections between these, was valued and valuable

as an intervention, even with a very light touch.

Based on the experience and insights from the first

phase an intensive period of ‘design’ emerged (phase

2: December 06–August 07). This involved co-designing a

more structured capacity building ‘programme’, again

working at multiple geographical levels and with a rich

mix of water stakeholders both within and across these

levels. During phase 2 funding for the programme was

agreed. These negotiations produced agreement on (i) an

overall focus for the programme (on co-operative and

adaptive water governance), (ii) a broad outline of the key

skills and knowledges (including governance, ecosystem

functioning, and communication and facilitation skills for

integrated catchment managing) required, and (iii) the mix

of learning approaches that would be employed.

Phase 3 (implementation of this capacity building

programme) began in September 07 and will run through

to June 09. The programme currently includes 2 £ 8-day

staff development ‘watercourses’ (SLIM 2004c), two facili-

tated stakeholder dialogues, one at a catchment and one at

a sub-catchment level (in the Inkomati and Mvoti catch-

ments), and a series of national policy learning workshops

and policy briefings. Work is also being undertaken with

a growing network of SA facilitators to develop and

co-facilitate this programme and to plan for up-scaling.

The approach adopted in SA, shown in Figure 3,

is different to the dominant paradigm for capacity or

capability building (Colvin et al. 2008). The main difference

is that the approach does not see capability building as

something at the end of a policy plus implementation

(or end-of pipe) process; rather capability comes through

the act of jointly constructing the issue (Figure 1b) and

building a ‘learning system’ in which those who participate

are able to transform the situation through concerted action

690 K. Collins et al. | Learning systems in integrated catchment management Water Science & Technology—WST | 59.4 | 2009

(Figure 2a). The SLIM framework (Figure 2) has informed

the ‘learning system’ design and enabled achievements to

date. Here we provide examples of two of the ‘variables’:

(i) history: following the end of the apartheid era the new

SA government was determined to create new and

progressive Water Laws that drew on the best elements

of water policy worldwide, with an emphasis on

sustainable development underpinned by principles of

IWRM and co-operative governance. This resulted in

the National Water Act (1998) and the National Water

Resources Strategy (2004). Throughout the past 13

years the sense of hope and the desire to deliver the

best for the new South Africa has remained strong;

(ii) ecological constraints: SA is both a water-stressed

country and one whose economic success over the

past 100 years has been underpinned by its ‘hydraulic

mission’: to make the most of its water resources,

primarily through an inventive mix of dam-building and

inter-basin transfers throughout the country. In terms of

capacity building work these ecological conditions have

proved both an opportunity and a constraint: an

opportunity to the extent that SA recognizes it has to

manage its water resources well if it is to guarantee water

security, and to do this it has to work out how to

implement its fine policies; a constraint is the extent that

otherwater stakeholders (e.g. industry)would rathernot

face the realities of increasingly limited water resources

and what this might imply for cooperative water

governance.

While Phase 3 (dialogue processes, Figure 3) is still at

an early stage, the approaches used, drawing eclectically

from a range of social learning practices, have so far proven

robust. At the same time there are challenges to address in

terms of building dialogue between less and more powerful

groups, which will test the skilfulness and ingenuity of those

involved to develop appropriate governance spaces and

‘languages’ through which to create inter-disciplinary

dialogue and action. Nonetheless, action to date has

explored and demonstrated approaches to capacity building

both of stakeholders and of Inkomati CMA and DWAF

(Department of Water and Forestry) staff. These are based

on an interactive rather than passive model of learning,

opening up spaces for ‘making sense’ of progressive policies

seeking to create change in complex situations against

a background of highly uneven development. Colvin et al.

(2008) contend that experiments of this type are critical

if DWAF is to implement its progressive water laws and

policies effectively.

Implications for integrated catchment managing

The systemic relationships between the SLIM variables

in Figure 2 suggest that efforts towards building learning

catchments require new forms of praxis which are sensitive

to how these variables are played out in particular contexts.

For example, in SA different understandings of water needs

for social transformation and those for ecosystem function-

ing (constraints) are also the basis of conflict (sometimes

unexpressed) and these tensions limit the effective imple-

mentation of Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs), a

particular type of institutional arrangement.

Challenges to our understanding of ecological con-

straints pertaining to water under climate change con-

ditions offer new opportunities to reconceptualise the praxis

of managing catchments. The increasing policy emphasis on

adaptation requires, in our view, some element of learning.

The extent to which this is recognised varies. Discussions

about the kinds of future institutional arrangements for

water management in the UK, for example, are only just

beginning (DEFRA 2008). In comparison, climate change

impacts on water in Australia are already recognised and

climate change adaptation ‘strategies’ are being vigorously

pursued. However, even with major drought issues, ‘old

Figure 3 | U-process metaphor, used to frame the Mvoti Catchment dialogue in South

Africa (Source: approach adapted from Kahane & Jaworski 2005).

691 K. Collins et al. | Learning systems in integrated catchment management Water Science & Technology—WST | 59.4 | 2009

thinking’ perpetuates with little evidence to suggest that

there has been a reconceptualisation of the adequacy of

current institutional structures and practices in the face of

climate change, the effects of which are essentially unknow-

able (Ison 2007).

In such situations of complexity, dis-connectedness,

conflict and multiple perspectives, we suggest building

a learning catchment by investing in ‘social learning’ as a

deliberate policy mechanism for catchment managing

(Blackmore et al. 2007; see also Moberg & Galaz 2005).

Through social learning approaches, resilience and adaptive

capacity in the form of relational capital can be built or

sustained through the governance arrangements for water.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has examined some of the challenges and

opportunities for developing learning systems for integrated

catchment managing (ICMg) based on experiences in two

different contexts: UK and South Africa (SA) and informed

by our developing work in Australia. In response to

deficiencies in WFD implementation, particularly a lack of

praxis for capacity and capability building for ICMg, we offer

an alternative approach based on ‘learning system’ design

and capability development.

Focussing on the epistemologies of knowledge in policy

mechanisms, we suggest that social learning, understood as

concerted action among stakeholders in complex and

uncertain situations (such as water catchments), is based

on the process of socially constructing an issue. From this

perspective, a ‘learning catchment’ will arise in social

relations in context-determined ways such that ICMg is

an emergent ‘performance’ of stakeholders engaged in

mutual action in which understandings and practices are

transformed in situation improving ways.

Within a social learning paradigm a priority in research

practice is to know how to create the circumstances for

social learning to occur as part of a learning system.

Our work in the UK reveals the contextual nature of ICS;

suggesting that ICM can never be a blueprint independent

of context. In our view, science has much to contribute to

developing a praxis for ICMg, seen as a process of managing

for emergence. In South Africa, we adopt a novel approach

to ‘learning system’ design and capability development for

jointly constructing the issue and building a ‘learning

system’ in which those who participate are able to transform

the situation through concerted action.

Our experiences in the UK and SA and with awareness

of recent experiences in Australia, while encouraging in

some aspects, suggest we are still a long way from

experiencing the interplay between human activity and

biophysical processes that would lead us to describe

catchments as ‘learning catchments’. Climate change and

related policy responses, particularly adaptation, perhaps

represent an opportunity to reconceptualise the praxis

of managing catchments with greater significance given to

designing learning systems as part of the adaptive process.

REFERENCES

Blackmore, C. 2005 Learning to appreciate learning systems for

environmental decision making—a ‘work-in-progress’

perspective. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 22, 329–341.

Blackmore, C. P., Ison, R. L. & Jiggins, J. 2007 Social learning: an

alternative policy instrument for managing in the context of

Europe’s water. Editorial, Special Edition, Environ. Sci. Policy

10(6), 493–498.

Checkland, P. B. & Scholes, J. 1999 Soft Systems Methodology in

Action. John Wiley, Chichester.

Collins, K. B., Ison, R. L. & Blackmore, C. P. 2005 River basin

planning project: social learning (Phase 1). Environment

Agency, Bristol, UK (www.environment-agency.gov.uk)

Collins, K., & Ison, R. 2007 Trusting emergence: Some

experiences of learning about integrated catchment science

with the Environment Agency of England and Wales. Paper

presented at the first CAIWA conference, Basel, November

2007.

Colvin, J., Ballim, F., Chimbuya, S., Everard, M., Goss, J.,

Klarenberg, G., Ndlovu, S., Ncala, D. & Weston, D. 2008

Building capacity for co-operative governance as a basis for

integrated water resources managing in the Inkomati and

Mvoti catchments, South Africa. Proc. IWRM Conference,

Capetown, March.

CEC 2000 Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and

of the Council establishing a framework for community action

in the field of water policy. Off. J. Eur. Commun. L327 43(22),

1–72.

CEC (Commision of the European Communities) 2007 Towards

sustainable water management in the European Union—First

stage in the implementation of the Water Framework Directive

2000/60/EC. SEC(2007) 362. CEC, Brussels.

DEFRA (Department of Environment, Farming, and Rural Areas)

2008 Future Water: The Government’s water strategy for

England, DEFRA, London.

692 K. Collins et al. | Learning systems in integrated catchment management Water Science & Technology—WST | 59.4 | 2009

Galaz, V. 2005 Does the EC Water Framework Directive build

resilience? Harnessing socio-ecological complexity in European

water management. Resilience and Freshwater Initiative Policy

Paper. Swedish Water House, Stockholm, Sweden.

Godden, L. & Ison, R. L. 2007 Understanding institutional

complexity: constraints to social learning and adaptive

management practice in water governance. Australian

Research Council Linkage International ICI—Social Sciences

Collaboration, Submission.

Ison, R. L. 2007 Water Politics: New Plan—Same Old Thinking.

New Matilda, Wednesday 7 February 2007:

http://www.newmatilda.com/2007/02/07/new-

plan%C3%A2%E2%82%AC%E2%80%9D-same-old-thinking

Ison, R. L. 2008 Systems thinking and practice for action research.

In: Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (eds) The Sage Handbook of

Action Research Participative Inquiry and Practice, 2nd

edition. Sage Publications, London, pp. 139–158.

Ison, R. L. & Russell, D. B. 2000 Exploring some distinctions for

the design of learning systems. Cybern. Human Knowing 7(4),

43–56.

Ison, R. L. & Watson, D. 2007 Illuminating the possibilities for

social learning in the management of Scotland’s water. Ecol.

Soc. 12(1), 21, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss1/

art21/.

Ison, R. L., Roling, N. & Watson, D. 2007a Challenges to science

and society in the sustainable management and use of water:

investigating the role of social learning. Environ. Sci. Policy

10(6), 499–511.

Ison, R. L., Blackmore, C. P., Collins, K. B. & Furniss, P. 2007b

Systemic environmental decision making: designing learning

systems. Kybernetes 36(9/10), 1340–1361.

Kahane, A. & Jaworski, J. 2005 The U-Process: A Social Technology

for Addressing Highly Complex Challenges. Generon

Consulting, Boston.

Moberg, F., & Galaz, V. 2005 Resilience: going from conventional

to adaptive freshwater management for human and ecosystem

compatibility. Swedish Water House Policy Brief, No. 3.

Stockholm International Water Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.

Open University 2002 Study Pack T552 Systems Thinking and

Practice: Diagramming. Open University, Milton Keynes.

SLIM 2004a SLIM Framework: Social Learning as a Policy

Approach for Sustainable Use of Water, (available at http://

slim.open.ac.uk). p 41.

SLIM 2004b Guidelines for Capacity Building for Social Learning

in Integrated Catchment Management and Sustainable Use of

Water. SLIM Policy Briefing No. 7 (available at http://slim.

open.ac.uk).

SLIM 2004c Watercourse. (available at http://slim.open.ac.uk).

Wenger, E. 1998 Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and

Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Vickers, G. 1983 Human Systems are Different. Harper & Row,

London and New York.

693 K. Collins et al. | Learning systems in integrated catchment management Water Science & Technology—WST | 59.4 | 2009