The identification and the categorization of stakeholder groups is always a complicated process, as it highly relies on objective perceptions of the researcher conducting the stakeholder analysis and the stakeholders interviewed. To avoid personal prejudices as much as possible, the stakeholder analysis applied in this thesis was based on a snowball sampling method that allowed to identify and interview stakeholders that local experts perceive as affecting the system or being affected by the problems occurring in La Picasa basin. Although this method is diminishing the risk that the researcher is
79 The Role of Wetlands in ESS Trade-Offs in La Picasa Basin, Argentina
Jasna Wiedemeier (11120659) | Sept. 11th, 2018 | Supervisor: Dr. Udo Nehren
subjectively “choosing” stakeholders, at the same time it is increasing the risk of only including stakeholders in the analysis that are already known components of the system. This could cause a stagnancy of stakeholder dynamics, because already known components are exclusively involved in the process and cause the entire system to fall into a status of inertia. To avoid this, the conducted pre-interviews with experts, not directly involved in the situation of La Picasa basin, were used to develop a basic feeling for stakeholder groups important to be included in a stakeholder analysis. Rosenstein et al. (2009) and Montico et al. (2008) identified two major stakeholder groups in La Picasa basin, which are the communities of Rufino, Diego de Alvear and Aarón Castellanos, because they are the ones most affected by the floods of La Picasa lagoon, and the farmers in the basin of La Picasa who were severely affected by the inundations and are still at risk to lose more productive land (Montico, Bonel and Rosenstein, 2008; Rosenstein et al., 2009). Although communities (local stakeholders) and farmers (agricultural stakeholders) were also identified as important stakeholder groups in the process of investigation, this study additionally included various other stakeholder groups, because it assumes that the problems the study area faces are characterized by a high degree of complexity that makes it inaccurate to only include the directly affected local and regional stakeholders. By considering a broader profile of involved stakeholder groups, this analysis aimed to bridge the current gap to a more holistic and diverse context of La Picasa basin’s problem situation.
Within the group of agricultural stakeholders, a specific dynamic created through an interesting disparity could be observed. Although the problem situation is affecting all agricultural stakeholders, the least affected by floods are those who affect the system the most. When listing the large influential renters of soy fields on the top, the private farmers of maize fields below, then cattle farmers with mixed systems underneath and in the end the dairy farms, one can assume that the further down, the applied agricultural systems consume more water (Interview 16- 18, Jobbágy (2018), see Annex 5). At the same time, those farming systems, suffer more from the occurring floods (see Figure 31). This creates an interesting gap, and, in a way, there is an implicit incentive of flooding the landscape, because it means, opening a niche for tenants even further by beating the renting prices down, when the floods recede. The lack of solidarity with neighboring farmers is also a problem. There is no social concept of a fair use of the basin, neither do the economic market rules allow the farmers to pursue a fair use. This disparity holds
a high conflict potential and is of significant importance as it appears between stakeholders that were identified as either “key players” or “context setters” with a high power to influence the future management of La Picasa basin.
It was observed that especially farmers are predominantly involved in the basin committees, thereby holding decision-making positions, while other stakeholder groups, such as nature conservation groups, are not represented. While it cannot be denied that most farmers would prefer a sustainable solution for the problems in La Picasa basin, their perspectives on possible solution approaches is apparently highly affected by the need to produce and earn economic returns through agricultural production. Without generalizing the inability of farmers to take integrated decisions, it is debatable if one stakeholder group, with homogenous incentives, can consider and value the versatile interests of Figure 31:Disparity between affecting and affected
agricultural stakeholders (own elaboration)
80 The Role of Wetlands in ESS Trade-Offs in La Picasa Basin, Argentina
Jasna Wiedemeier (11120659) | Sept. 11th, 2018 | Supervisor: Dr. Udo Nehren
an interdisciplinary stakeholder audience. With respect to other ESS such as ‘hydrological regulation’ or ‘habitat quality’ it appears understandable that the voting of farmers would favor ‘agricultural production’ in a trade-off situation. “It is like giving the wolf the responsibility to care for the chicken.” (Interview 19, Bertoni (2018), see Annex 5).
Although a social network between stakeholders exists, several conflicts prevent a proper functioning of this system and a basin-wide integrated management concept based on wetland restoration (Interview 1, Villa Uria (2018); Interview 5-7, Milardovich (2018); Interview 10-15, Maurizi (2018); Interview 19, Bertoni (2018), see Annex 5). The conflict between the three involved provinces, defined as “key players”, came to a head in a judicial proceeding in front of the Argentinean Supreme Court of Justice and represents a major limitation for finding a holistic solution in conjunction (Interview 10-15, Duhalde (2018); Interview 19, Bertoni (2018), see Annex 5). The ability to negotiate a compromise between all three provinces seems to be a distant prospect, as the battle lines are drawn. Nevertheless, a quick solution is very much indispensable and could also hold an opportunity as new ways of thinking and acting must be explored of necessity. Applying the concept of ESS trade-offs within the frame of SES theory could fall on fertile grounds in the current impasse and create a basis for a more sustainable future basin management.
Stakeholders that would support a future project which is fostering wetlands and their self-regulatory ESS are currently very sparse among the involved decision-making parties and typical stakeholders that could be in favor of making use of nature-based solutions, such as nature conservation groups or touristic actors, are not well-connected with key players in the study area (Interview 10-15, Furno (2018), see Annex 5). Consequently, it seems more suitable to convince leading stakeholder groups of the benefits that wetlands could hold. Because the region is highly dominated by agricultural actors, a change in land-use management could be more viable when starting out of their inner midst rather than being an artificial outer movement that forces the region’s main stakeholder group into a new situation that they do not support. Once current key players are intrinsically convinced of the potential wetlands hold for reducing flood risks, they would automatically look for help and guidance from expert groups and an improved inclusion of further stakeholder groups could become an autonomous process.