Results from workshops with stakeholders
Two workshops were organized independently with stakeholders from agriculture (10 fev 2022, at Montenegro Secondary School, Faro) and from tourism (10.03.2022, at the International School of Algarve, Almancil).
The results summarized here were taken from Field’s diaries prepared by members of the team, namely:
Agriculture workshop: Sofia Bento; Carolina Araújo
Tourism workshop: Leonardo Veronesi, Carolina Araújo
Agriculture workshop
Stakeholders were asked to write down factors that in their opinion had led to the current situation of the aquifer. The answers were:
-
- Lack of land planning for agriculture and tourism
-
- Deficit of environmental education
-
- Deficit of actions to increase sensibility to environmental management
-
- The number of dams is insufficient
-
- Delay in updating farming methods
-
- Deficient sensitivity by decision-makers
-
- Lack of trust in some technical and scientific information (public information)
-
- Lack of trust in other actors (blame it on others)
-
- Excessive bureaucracy, namely for authorizing the use of alternative water sources (e.g., treated wastewater)
-
- Water losses in the distribution systems (for irrigation and urban)
-
- Delay in applying solutions (i.e., a new dam for irrigation)
-
- Lack of technical support and assistance from public entities
-
- Excessive number of private wells, without control
-
- Difficulty in understanding information provided by public entities, and some sensitivity campaigns (i.e, incorrect science communication methods)
-
- Scientific knowledge produced in the research centers does not reach the private sector
-
- Universities should do consultancy (which they do)
-
- Farmers should contact more frequently the university
The concerns referred to were:
-
- Farmers are seen as the culprits for using too much water
-
- Need to assure national food sufficiency (food security)
The solutions were:
-
- Build more dams
-
- Increase farming technologies and crop specialization
-
- Reuse treated wastewater for irrigation of some crops
-
- Build desalinization plants
-
- Alteration of the diet for one consuming less meat
-
- Increase environmental sensitivity of decision-makers
-
- Increase the environmental sensitivity of actors from the tourism sector
-
- Improve regulation
-
- Reduce water losses throughout the distribution systems (for irrigation and in the urban systems)
-
- Improve land planning concerning farm fields and touristic areas
-
- Search for shared solutions with other stakeholders
-
- Improve education and sensitivity tools for laymen
The conditions necessary to implement the solutions:
-
- Reduce bureaucracy and handling times of processes by the public entities
-
- Increase transparency in decision-making
-
- Increase public participation in decision making
-
- Improve the communication of information about management solutions (public consultation - may be unaware of the existing compulsory processes)
-
- More research
-
- Need of having more environmental and technical information from uncompromised sources
Public participation was not one of the priorities in the list above - which demonstrates that citizen participation is not key in the planning, relying instead on centralized public organisms.
The speech reflects a "technocentric" environmental ethics, dependent on public regulation and control (though critic about it), with a passive attitude.
Tourism workshop
Stakeholders were asked to write down factors that in their opinion had led to the current situation of the aquifer. The answers were:
-
Demand by residents for ‘perfect green lawns’
-
Lack of control over irrigation systems
-
Illegal boreholes
-
Lack of understanding of development
-
Slow adoption of technology
-
Little recycling of treated wastewater
-
Green spaces are not ecologic (seen as a socio-cultural and educational issue)
-
Economic interests
-
Increase in the number of golf courses
-
Bad water management
-
Lack of rain
-
Lack of information
-
Lack of intelligent watering system
-
Dispersion of water (maybe: too many users?)
-
Excess of boreholes without control
-
Population density / green areas
-
People don’t understand climate change
-
Water losses in the distribution systems (for irrigation and urban)
-
Lack of trust in technical and scientific information (public information) is not an issue
-
Climate variability
-
Excessive buorocracy, namely for authorizing the use of alternative water sources (e.g., treated wastewater)
The concerns referred to were:
-
- Government needs to recognize tourism as an income outside of the summer too.
-
- The Algarve is run on tourism, and without it, the economy in the region is close to nothing
-
- Climate change will bring new plant diseases
The solutions were:
-
- Government needs to make investments in technology to reduce water consumption
-
- Government needs to identify the boreholes and tax the owners
-
- Government needs to invest back in the technological solutions
-
- Government needs to invest back in education
-
- Government needs to reinvest in the area in water (ways of slowing down the salination of water)
-
- Tax heavily owners of illegal wells (but making water more expensive for the legal doesn’t solve the problem)
-
- More sensibilization and environmental education for the children
-
- Raising water prices is not a solution
-
- Limit the amount of water and square meters of garden allowed for each family
-
- Discuss with other stakeholders
The conditions necessary to implement the solutions:
-
- Reduce uncertainty by providing more technical and scientific information
-
- Have farmers implement the same solutions taken by the golf sector (maybe referring to the use of treated wastewater and more advanced irrigation control systems)
-
Need for a platform in which to discuss and work all together
Public participation was not one of the priorities in the list above - which demonstrates that citizen participation is not key in the planning, relying instead on centralized public organisms.
The speech reflects a "technocentric" environmental ethics, dependent on public regulation and control (though critic about it), with an active attitude (searching for own solutions and environmental monitoring).
The position of farmers and tourism actors are quite different, despite both sharing technocentric environmental ethics.
Farmers see the state as the regulator, imposing some arbitrary and opaque rules. Their position is one of vulnerability, mainly due to economic debilities.
Actors from tourism share the opinion of a regulatory state, but are much more confident of their negotiating power. As so, the feeling is one of dominance, demanding action from the state.
The table below summarizes the answers given by stakeholders. It shows where they agree, and the divergent opinions.
The Agreement rate (AR) computes the percentage of agreement between the two.
Results from these two first workshops show a AR of only 13%.
Figure: Environmental ethics of farmers and tourism actors
Table: Agreement rate between farmers and actors from tourism
Figure: Venn diagrams showing the intersection of causes (for the present situation), solutions, concerns for the future, and the conditions necessary for the implementation of the solutions for farmers and actors from tourism