Overall, in relation to the use and interpretation of data and evidence in the Wear catchment, key points will be expanded on and illustrated in the following subsections connecting data and legitimacy, the role of intermediary groups, the power of data as evidence and its strategic use and mistrust.
177 Data and legitimacy
Within the Wear catchment there are multiple forms of data that are referred to by stakeholders, and that each of the stakeholders collect and use in different ways. Quite often stakeholders seem to portray a sense of ownership over the data, pertaining to who has arranged and carried out collection and how it has been done. For example stakeholders often use phrases such as “our data”, “their data”, “the EA’s data”, “other people’s data”. Such a perspective also translates into the language of sharing and exchange and often it is up to a group to ‘give’ their data if involved in a partnership setting. Sometimes data can be seen to be co-created for a project, and therefore belong to the project, but still generated by a particular group within that project. Data therefore, are always associated with a particular group and if there are problems or difficulties with the data, they can often translate into difficult relationships. Processes of legitimisation are associated with both the form of data and the group collecting that data as well as the purpose of the use of the data.
Particular forms of data appear to be more universally accepted than others when the state of the river and stream environments are being assessed. For example, acceptable and useful data are sometimes (not always) described as “accredited” (Stakeholder #7), “robust, academic” (Stakeholder
#4), “rigorous, fact based” (Stakeholder #13), “quality, scientific” (Stakeholder #11), “baseline, chemical”
(Stakeholder #18), which are associated with stakeholders such as Durham University, DCC, NWL and EA. Such data are representative of fairly traditional forms of science knowledge and are referred to by stakeholders for their utility in enabling, for example, better understanding of the river quality, better understanding of what is happening in the area, better ability to prove a point using the data, and better ability to know the exact effect of pollution sources on the water quality. Some of the stakeholders hold the traditional forms of data in contrast to less traditionally accepted forms such as “anecdotes” (#11) or, as one stakeholder described, “a consultation process”
(#13) (which referred to the Twizell Burn Green Infrastructure meetings). Associated with each of the types of data mentioned, is the opinion that they are acceptable and therefore legitimate for a number of aims within the process of catchment management, and therefore that the stakeholders associated with those forms of data also carry legitimacy to be involved in the management process.
The pursuit of such data has likely had an effect on the shape of the relationships in the Wear network, for example two other stakeholders, representing the CA and NWL mentioned that they had recently increased their association or interaction with the EA, as both organisations have not historically collected river water monitoring data and rely on the EA to provide data with which they can use to decide whether to change their practice. As there has been an increased focus on more groups taking responsibility for change in water quality and therefore a change in
178 practice, their association with the EA has been seen to change and intensify to facilitate the sharing of acceptable and legitimate data. More specifically, the CA mentioned purposefully seeking to work closely with NWL and Durham University on a joint water treatment project for the reason that both groups would have access to or ability to create data about the area to inform action within the aims of a particular project. Such relationships form the configuration and operationalisation of the governance network within the catchment and can be seen as functional as the stakeholders involved spoke positively about their utility. Functionality may therefore arise when groups seek relationships based on data sharing where groups share the same understanding of acceptability and utility of particular types of data.
Barriers to functionality in relation to legitimacy
Barriers to functionality may exist where different types of data are seen as acceptable, useful and legitimate by different interacting groups, giving therefore a lack of legitimacy or perceived legitimacy to particular actors at particular times, which can be seen to be representative of broken or weakened links in a network. Within the Wear some angling groups have less positive relationships with representatives of the EA, due to disputes over the legitimacy of data. The importance of the disagreements lie in the power the data have to provide evidence for a need for a (potentially unwanted) change in practice. Within the structure of the North East fisheries forum meetings, EA and angling groups come together to present and discuss data. The meetings take the form of groups such as EA, WRT and AT presenting information, research and data about the river, with times of discussion for members of the angling clubs to ask questions. One EA representative reflects on the frustration felt when attempting to argue for the legitimacy of his own data:
we have to deal with anecdotes all the time, we go there and we have to give cast-iron, quality, scientific data to prove our point and there will be people in that room that won't believe it, no matter how […] many times you give it to them, no matter which way round you give it to them, if he [an angler] counted two oranges going past his flow gauge as far as he is concerned his data is correct and ours is wrong, and you will always beg to differ on that, but I know whose data I would believe at that moment in time (Stakeholder #11)
The difficulty described relates to the understanding of legitimacy that the EA officer holds, perceiving that his data are more reliable, useful, appropriate and believable than the data collected by the flow gauge of the angler. This legitimacy is perhaps based on the familiarity of the accepted norms and practice of data gathering and analysis established within the large institution of the EA, likely operationalised between multiple teams through accepted methods, compared to an unknown method carried out by one individual. Uncertainty, therefore, is likely to play a part in the mistrust of the angler’s data by the EA, compounded by a lack of opportunity to check its
179 credibility. Uncertainty and unfamiliarity of method and motive may also have been the cause of mistrust of the EA data on the angler’s part. Equally, a defensive attitude may also play a part on both sides. For example, one angling stakeholder stated that “I don't think [the EA take different forms of data and knowledge seriously], I think that there is quite a bit of arrogance on both sides” (Stakeholder
#10), suggesting that perhaps a certain closed nature, or at least a perception of a closed nature, may be part of the problem.
Within the Fisheries Forum meeting the angler’s data seemed to be dismissed by the EA officer who was running the session, demonstrating that the EA data were valued more highly as contributions to the system of knowledge at that moment in time, influenced by the central and powerful position of the EA as an organisation in the governance of the catchment with the ability to make decisions. This links to questions of power within the catchment system and the potential strength of the EA as a government actor despite change to governance approaches that attempt to diversify the political actors within decision-making. The angler who made the claim about data may have left the meeting feeling distrustful of the EA creating a lack of a trusting, open, flexible link at that moment in time that would be highly valued in a networked system and an approach founded on a co-production of knowledge conceptualization. At a different time the nature of the relationship may change, as it is possible for links to transform if effort is made by both involved to connect and communicate, even if to discuss conflicting opinions. The promise of a chance to meet again in a different setting to discuss the data was alluded to by the EA officer in the meeting, demonstrating the role of dialogue in attempting to create more trusting relationships where unfamiliarity of data creates a barrier. Power relations and ideas of legitimacy are still likely to dominate communication, but the repetitive contact may form a link between conflicting groups that is beneficial to the sustainability of the network of actors.
Similarly, another example of a possible barrier to functionality is through the way that the data collected as part of the Riverfly project (table 5.1) are used to inform (or not) decisions about the official WFD status of a waterbody (for which the EA is responsible) as well as prioritising action on the waterbody. One representative of the Angling Trust mentioned that “There's always been an issue. […] There has been and continues to be a reluctance of the [Environment] Agency to accept the [Riverfly]
data.” (Stakeholder #5). This reluctance refers to the fact that the invertebrate counts and subsequent analysis of pollution levels in water courses assessed through Riverfly projects does not inform the WFD status of the waterbody, compared to sampling and monitoring by the EA, which does act to change the status as well as acting to change priorities for action. The reluctance is again mentioned by a representative of the WRT, where the invertebrate data “wouldn't do something like change their actual status of a waterbody” (Stakeholder #4). The changing of the status of the waterbody is seen as a powerful act within management practice as the status of the
180 waterbodies is the measure by which many of the actors base their actions. Without being able to contribute to the changing of the status the Riverfly volunteers may feel unimportant or powerless through the lack of acceptance of their data for this purpose, creating a mistrust and a weakness in the network of communication.
Legitimacy built through the role of intermediary groups
In contrast to the dismissal of angler’s data, the Riverfly scheme is officially endorsed by the EA as an early-warning system and the volunteers’ observations are the catalyst for EA action. The significant enabler of the translation of data from volunteers to EA is the role of the intermediary group of the WRT. The WRT are the lead organisation in charge of the coordination of the Riverfly project on the Wear and as such are the point of contact for the volunteers. When there is a change in the invertebrate levels (below a trigger level or simply an observation of significant change) the volunteers will report to the WRT, who then contact the EA officers who will go out to the location and collect their own samples and monitoring in order to make an assessment of what has happened. The Riverfly data are supplementary to the EA’s own data and act to flag up potential pollution events that the EA would not have been able to pick up. The feedback from the EA comes back to the WRT who then feel it is vital that they let the volunteers know what has happened:
A key part of Riverfly [is that] [the volunteers] get the data back and if [the volunteers] say that they have had a trigger-level breach it is just as important that I get back to them and say this is what’s happened [according to the EA feedback].They want to be able to see why they are doing it. And that makes them feel like they have helped out. (Stakeholder #4)
The intermediary role of the WRT in the translation of the data to the EA and of the feedback to the volunteers is vital for maintaining a sense of value, and legitimacy of the volunteer groups through the valuation of their data. Eden (2012) previously noted the need for relationships to be nurtured, which Bell et al. (2008) has claimed may involve showing that the data reported by volunteers are valued and useful. The WRT act as the translator through which value is demonstrated and usefulness communicated. They are therefore central to the maintenance of a sense of inclusion and fairness and legitimacy, which could arguably be vital for maintaining the functionality of the governance network, particularly in the form of strong, trusting links between groups.
A change in attitude of the EA and the presence of the WCP as a structure through which to feedback to the WRT have also been claimed as enabling factors for the maintenance of the relationship necessary within the network. For example a representative of the WRT claimed that:
181 I think [the EA] have got much better at listening, accepting and then following up and also getting back to people, even if it's through the catchment partnership, getting back to people who have volunteered some information and shown them that that is actually valuable, that they haven't just pooh-poohed it, as it were, so that's got better. (Stakeholder #4)
Such a change in attitude is associated with the existence of the WCP as a structure through which relationships can be nurtured more easily than perhaps previously.
Data become powerful as evidence
Data can be used to fulfil aims and goals within the catchment when it is used as evidence and therefore interpreted as valid support for particular courses of action. Certain judgments of legitimacy, expectations and goals determine the utility of different types of evidence, based on both the data and associated knowledge systems (Juntti et al., 2009). Evidence can be utilised to gain funding and justify action or inaction. The functionality of activities within a governance network might be affected by the way in which evidence is used and interpreted to produce action, affected in turn by the relations and power dynamics amongst the stakeholders.
Certain actors have different relationships with data as evidence, for example a large business such as NWL needs to have access to evidence that demonstrates certainty in terms of pollution levels, or evidence of the source of pollution, in order to be able to justify resources used to carry out actions:
I suppose it's the evidence to know what the problem is. [In] some of [the waterbodies] it's maybe not defined fully as to why it is failing for fish or invertebrates. […] So some of the areas we don't know who is responsible and who should be paying, basically […]. But I think where we have got good evidence from the EA, from the sampling in the right place, well then we can say that yes, well that's definitely down to us or, yes we can make a difference because we know this. (Stakeholder #7)
NWL rely on evidence that they deem to be ‘good’, from the EA, as a legitimate actor, to justify action. Their need for evidence relates to an understanding of responsibility as payment for damage attributed to their own activities in the past, and relies on data and sampling to be able to prove where pollution is sourced and thus who is responsible. Due to the restrictive nature of this method of justification and often the lack of data to act as evidence for their action, they can be seen to be inactive in collaborative situations. For example one stakeholders commented:
182 [NWL] don't come forward with any resource at all, […] if you see where any of their names are against any of the actions on the action plan, you won't see NWL coming forward. […] ‘Is it going to deliver enough for us?’ NWL will always ask that question. (Stakeholder #1)
The acknowledgement of a lack of engagement reflects on the different abilities and expectations of different types of stakeholders in collaborative situations. Private companies have different priorities than charities or governments and this plays out in the relationships within partnerships.
A factor for the perceived lack of involvement of NWL may be a lack of evidence for problems clearly attributable to them, which may make financial or time commitments difficult. The effect of NWL’s attitude and behaviour around the use of evidence affects the relationships that are possible in the catchment networks, through exchange or lack of exchange of resources and commitment to collaborative action.
Equally, the power of evidence can be felt by the absence of data to be used as evidence. Much of the connectivity of a network within a catchment-management process based on collaborative and partnership working relies on the existence of easy and open processes of data sharing to provide opportunities to transform data into evidence to justify action. If such processes do not exist due to legal issues, lack of willingness, difficulties of translation and data integration, or technical difficulties, data is not shared easily and progress cannot be made in terms of decision-making or action based on that data (Paudyal et al., 2013). Problems arise when different stakeholders have different understandings and strategies for data sharing depending on the requirements of the organisation and the nature and form of the data being shared. In the Wear catchment an NWL representative stated the difficulty faced by the organisation to share data within the WCP:
It's really difficult to get the information out because [of] data sharing. […] We should be more open about how we share things but that again comes back to the business being very closed and private, and getting that [sharing] mentality is quite difficult. When as a business we don't really understand what we should and shouldn't be sharing and a catchment partnership is coming up with quite reasonable requests really, [our ability is affected by the fact that] some of that information is almost business sensitive. But if you can't share that then you can't be open about the opportunities for investment or [meet] the needs. (Stakeholder #23)
The stakeholder recognises the importance of data sharing and the demand that working in partnership puts on sharing data. The difficulty this specific organisation face in sharing is the fact that, due to the newness of the catchment partnership structure, officials within NWL had
183 only just picked up on the issue. The representative of NWL later states that the business is currently looking into the possibility of drawing up data sharing agreements amongst the partnership in order that they can ensure the legal policies are in place to free up an ability to contribute as fully as possible. Stakeholder #23 feels that an important part of her role is to ensure NWL is contributing as much as it can. Her passion can be felt in the way that she reports on the difficulties faced, and she demonstrates a committed attitude to changing practice, despite difficulties. Although the functionality of the catchment governance network is affected by the lack of data sharing through limiting the ability to make effective decisions about management actions, demonstrated by the lack of commitment of organisations such as NWL due to uncertainty over data sharing policies, the new changes in the network (the creation of intermediary roles in NWL for example), create an opportunity for change in practice and an
183 only just picked up on the issue. The representative of NWL later states that the business is currently looking into the possibility of drawing up data sharing agreements amongst the partnership in order that they can ensure the legal policies are in place to free up an ability to contribute as fully as possible. Stakeholder #23 feels that an important part of her role is to ensure NWL is contributing as much as it can. Her passion can be felt in the way that she reports on the difficulties faced, and she demonstrates a committed attitude to changing practice, despite difficulties. Although the functionality of the catchment governance network is affected by the lack of data sharing through limiting the ability to make effective decisions about management actions, demonstrated by the lack of commitment of organisations such as NWL due to uncertainty over data sharing policies, the new changes in the network (the creation of intermediary roles in NWL for example), create an opportunity for change in practice and an