Climate change adaptation has influenced river management through an anticipatory governance paradigm. As such, futures and the power of knowing the future has become increasingly influential in water management. Yet, multiple future imaginaries co-exist, where some are more dominant that others. In this PhD research, I focus on deconstructing the future making process in climate change adaptation by asking ‘What river imaginaries exist and what future imaginaries dominate climate change adaptation in riverine infrastructure projects of the Meuse and Magdalena river?’. I firstly explore existing river imaginaries in a case study of the river Meuse. Secondly, I explore imaginaries as materialised in numerical models for the Meuse and Magdalena river. Thirdly, I explore the integration and negotiation of imaginaries in participatory modelling practices in the Magdalena river. Fourthly, I explore contesting and alternative imaginaries and look at how these are mobilised in climate change adaptation for the Magdalena and Meuse river. Multiple concepts stemming from Science and Technology Studies and Political Ecology will guide me to theorise the case study findings. Finally, I reflect on my own positionality in action-research which will be an iterative process of learning and unlearning while navigating between the natural and social sciences.
Worldwide, rivers face challenges due to human and climatic pressures. Floods, droughts, pollution, damming and hydropeaking are only a few examples of these pressures, and influence the way rivers flow. Climate change adaptation projects increase the incentive to domesticate rivers, often legitimised through expert views on (future) vulnerability and risk. This emerging river imaginary dominates current debates in many rivers in our world. River imaginaries reflect spatially bound hydrosocial territories in which multiple actors on multiple scales from multiples sectors operate to reach varying objectives. They include water flows, ecological systems, climate conditions, hydraulic infrastructure, financial means, institutional arrangements, legal frameworks and information/knowledge hubs. In the context of climate change adaptation, river imaginaries are strongly dependent on the extent to which climate change is expected to influence rivers through a mixture of probable, possible, desirable or preferable versions of a (future) river. As such, knowledge-structures of future making are scrutinised in this research by emphasising on the role of change, the role of futures and the role of experts. This presentation aims to elucidate how river imaginaries have influenced river management under climate change adaptation that resulted in large infrastructural projects. Through a study of the Meuse river, a concrete case of a imaginary came into being in the Dutch-Belgian Border-Meuse trajectory. Moreover, preliminary result from adaptation projects in the marshlands of the lower Magdalena in Colombia strengthen the dominate imaginary of technocratic and ecocentric approaches to climate change adaptation where an expert view on local knowledge dominates.
LINK
In the field of climate change adaptation, the future matters. River futures influence the way adaptation projects are implemented in rivers. In this paper, we challenge the ways in which dominant paradigms and expert claims monopolise the truth concerning policies and designs of river futures, thereby sidelining and delegitimising alternative river futures. So far, limited work has been performed on the power of river futures in the context of climate change adaptation. We conceptualised the power of river futures through river imaginaries, i.e., collectively performed and publicly envisioned reproductions of riverine socionatures mobilised through truth claims of social life and order. Using the Border Meuse project as a case study, a climate change adaptation project in a stretch of the river Meuse in the south of the Netherlands, and a proclaimed success story of climate adaptation in Dutch water management, we elucidated how three river imaginaries (a modern river imaginary, a market-driven imaginary, and an eco-centric river imaginary) merged into an eco-modern river imaginary. Importantly, not only did the river futures merge, but their aligned truth regimes also merged. Thus, we argue that George Orwell’s famous quote, “who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present, controls the past” can be extended to “who controls the future, controls how we see and act in the present, and how we rediscover the past”.
Rivers all over the world are deteriorating in a fast rate. As a response, movements in the defence of rivers emerge and aim to restore and protect rivers. One of these defence strategies is to politicise fish to generate arguments for the protection of rivers, drawing from a fish-friendly river imaginary. The concept of river imaginaries describes that power is exercised through and by knowledge generated in truth regimes. In this poster presentation, we elaborate on two cases in which fishing people and their allies use a variety of truth strategies, resonating with specific fish-friendly river imaginaries. Both case studies are influenced by harmful mining and industry practices that pollute the river and wetland.The Dutch case study of the Border Meuse river reveals that the main argument to politicise fish is that infrastructural interventions and hydropower is killing and damaging fish. Through knowledge generating on the amount of fish-death and the aquatic state, a knowledge agenda is set and power is exercised to stop harmful river activities. The Colombian case of the Zapatosa wetlands reveals that the main argument to politicise fish is that fish is the main source of food. Through knowledge generating that focusses on re-learning from past artisanal fishing strategies and biocultural adaptation, a knowledge agenda is set and power is exercised to stop harmful mining practices. Although these river movements are using truth regimes to defend rivers, counter facts, counter norms, and counter agendas in the defence of harmful practices remain to exist.
Ongoing
Not known
