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.
Restoring rivers with an integrated approach that combines water safety, nature development and gravel mining remains a challenge. Also for the Grensmaas, the most southern trajectory of the Dutch main river Maas, that crosses the border with Belgium in the south of Limburg. The first plans (“Plan Ooievaar”) were already developed in the 1980s and were highly innovative and controversial, as they were based on the idea of using nature-based solutions combined with social-economic development. Severe floodings in 1993 and 1995 came as a shock and accelerated the process to implement the associated measures. To address the multifunctionality of the river, the Grensmaas consortium was set up by public and private parties (the largest public-private partnership ever formed in the Netherlands) to have an effective, scalable and socially accepted project. However, despite the shared long term vision and the further development of plans during the process it was hard to satisfy all the goals in the long run. While stakeholders agreed on the long-term goal, the path towards that goal remains disputed and depends on the perceived status quo and urgency of the problem. Moreover, internal and external pressures and disturbances like climate change or the economic crisis influenced perception and economic conditions of stakeholders differently. In this research we will identify relevant system-processes connected to the implementation of nature-based solutions through the lens of social-ecological resilience. This knowledge will be used to co-create management plans that effectively improve the long-term resilience of the Dutch main water systems.
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.
