Consultancy Firms and Their Globetrotting Ideas

Building Water Resilience: A World of Possibilities

Private consultancy firms are important players in the big web of how we manage environmental issues worldwide. Surprisingly, not many people have looked into what these companies do in the world of environmental policies and research. In this section, we’re taking a closer look at how these consultancy firms spread and use the idea of ‘resilience’ on a global scale. We want to understand how and why these firms are all about ‘resilience’. Why are consultants promoting ‘resilience’ as a solution for our climate-proof future? What do consultants understand about ‘resilience’ and what are they getting from it?

Water resilience has been a hot topic in research for the last couple of decades, and it’s also becoming a big deal in the real world, like in policies and how we do things. The original idea of ‘resilience’ illustrates the capacity of a system to endure and recover from disruptive change, while maintaining functionality; ideally, it would also reduce future vulnerability to adverse events (Holling, 1973; Folke, 2006; National Research Council, 2012).

Some call it a new way of doing things when it comes to water management (Gunderson et al., 1995; Lee, 1993). But, not everyone is on board with this idea – some people think it’s controversial (Kaika, 2017; Sudmeier-Rieux, 2014). Some think ‘resilience’ doesn’t tackle core vulnerability issues related to why systems were disturbed in the first place. At the same time, governments and organizations are spending a substantial amount of money to make sure we can handle things like climate change, and they call this “climate resiliency” (Ayers et al., 2011; Sudmeier-Rieux, 2014).

This whole idea of resilience isn’t just something people are talking about; they’re actually putting it into action in cities worldwide. There’s a big group of people from the government, businesses, and non-profit groups who are all working together to make cities more resilient, and this network stretches across the globe. They’re doing things like making coastal cities better at handling disasters and using nature-based solutions to tackle problems (Leitner et al., 2018). Environmental consultancy firms, like ARUP and AECOM, are also playing a huge role in spreading the idea of resilience. You could say they’re like the preachers of the “resilience gospel” (Leitner et al., 2018).

To dig deeper into this issue, we looked into the top global private environmental consultancy firms that advise on ‘resilience’ all around the world. Together with former master student, Olga Popescu, I surveyed 34 consultants who are leaders in 17 of these firms and are all about ‘resilient water solutions.’ These firms are some of the biggest in the environmental business. We used an online survey and a special Q-method to figure out what these consultants think about ‘resilience,’ where they get their ideas, and how they turn these ideas into real-world solutions.

After looking at all their answers, it turns out that consultants don’t all see ‘resilience’ the same way. Some think of it as dealing with tough times, others see it as bouncing back, and some even think it’s about changing things for the better. So, no one seems to have a single, clear idea of what ‘resilience’ really means. We also found out that these consultants have different roles. Sometimes they’re trusted advisors, other times they manage public involvement, and sometimes they’re like marketing experts who promote and go along with the ‘resilience’ trend. But they also face some tricky problems, like when they insist too much on promoting the idea of ‘resilience’ or when external factors such as client expectations and markets push them to keep talking about ‘resilience’ all the time.

Managing Droughts in Chile: An attempt with IWRM Strategies

Private consultancy firms often get hired by various levels of government and development agencies to help put environmental policies into action. They work on behalf of these public groups and play a significant role in achieving global goals like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Let’s take a closer look at how this works by focusing on SDG 6, which deals with water and sanitation, and how it’s being implemented in Chile. Specifically, we’re interested in the role of international consultancy firms in making SDG 6.5.1 a reality. This part of the goal aims at achieving IWRM. In the last 5 years in northern Chile, the aim was to improve IWRM with the help of a recent project that involved cooperation between the Dutch and Chilean governments, along with Dutch consultancy firms.

Now, SDG 6.5.1 is all about managing water in an integrated way, but when you look at the SDG 6 UN Water Portal, it shows that Chile has only achieved about 32% of this goal. That means they still have a long way to go in terms of managing their water resources efficiently. So what does IWRM even mean? According to the Global Water Partnership, it’s a “process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.”

So, to help Chile improve its water management, the Dutch government teamed up with Chile in 2016 and created a cooperation pilot project called GIRAgua. This project focused on managing water resources in the Elqui river basin and involved Dutch consultancy firms.

Now, managing water in Chile isn’t easy because of its unique water laws. These laws treat water as a private commodity, and they’ve been in place since 1981. This means the government can give private organizations and individuals the right to use water forever, and these rights can be bought and sold. Also, the idea of managing water by looking at whole watersheds isn’t properly defined in Chile’s water laws (see Tinoco et al., 2022).

On top of all this, Chile has been facing a mega-drought for over a decade, which is partly due to climate change but also because of how water is (mis)used and (mis)managed. So, the GIRAgua project proposed a solution: store water underground and reuse it to combat the drought. Basically, they wanted to transfer water from the surface to underground storage to prevent water from evaporating. But this brought up a tricky question: who owns the water when it’s transferred to the underground?

The Dutch and Chilean experts worked together to build the infrastructure for underground water storage, but they also had to deal with the politics around water rights. I visited the project myself in 2022 and talked to 26 people involved to understand the roles and challenges foreign consultants faced in such a project and context.

Navigating the Chilean water context was a big challenge for foreign consultants. Implementing IWRM ideas was really tough. From the perspective of foreign consultants, there were lots of different groups to work with, like government levels, academics, water user associations, and companies that had water rights. Plus, the GIRAgua project had to deal with three changes in government, which made things even more complicated. It took five years, and a ton of effort, to get all these stakeholders on board and finally complete the project.

I also talked to the Chilean counterparts and local consultants working on the GIRAgua project, and they had some interesting insights. They felt that not enough civil society groups were involved, and shed light to me on where the original project idea came from. It turns out that Chilean academics had the idea first but couldn’t get support from the local government. However, when a foreign expert pitched the same idea, it was accepted and supported. This raises questions about the credibility of foreign consultants compared to local experts in Chile.

The project taught me a few lessons. One was the difference between technical and governance priorities. The project focused on building the infrastructure first and then planned to deal with the political aspects, meaning the Water User Rights. Dealing with politics from the start might have slowed things down even more, according to a project member. However, I question whether that is the correct approach.

There’s also a problem with the consultancy model itself. Consultancy projects are often short-term, and government changes can disrupt long-term plans. So, projects often lack continuity, which can be a big issue. Lastly, there’s something called ‘consultancy fatigue’ in Chile. There are so many studies and reports, but not enough action. Consultants often feel like their advice ends up collecting dust on a shelf.

In the end, the current water management model in Chile is based on individualism, which makes collaboration difficult. There’s also a lack of national water leadership, making it a tough place for foreign consultants, especially those trying to promote IWRM, which is all about coordinated integration and cooperation.

Addressing Coastal Erosion in Colombia with ‘Building with Nature’

In 2022, I went together with former master student, Gaia Zanzi, to Colombia to explore Dutch-Colombian projects dealing with coastal erosion. We wanted to understand how Dutch consultancy firms were helping with coastal protection using ‘Building with Nature’ approaches.

The Dutch consultants were hired by the Dutch government to tackle Colombia’s big problem: eroding coastlines. Colombia’s beautiful coasts are under threat due to development and economic pressures. Things like building highways, ports, and urban infrastructure have taken a toll. Around half of Colombia’s Caribbean coast is eroding, and it’s getting worse (Rangel-Buitrago et al., 2015).

To deal with this, Colombia has historically built hard shore protection structures like groins, seawalls, and breakwaters. These structures were based on the Italian-Spanish coastal protection concept. The problem is, these solutions were often rushed due to public pressure, without proper environmental impact assessments (Rangel-Buitrago et al., 2015). The whole decision-making process around coastal erosion in Colombia is a bit of a mess. It’s unclear who’s responsible for what (Rangel-Buitrago et al., 2015).

So, the Colombian government turned to the Netherlands for help. The Netherlands is famous for its water management expertise (Rozemeijer, 2013). The cooperation between Colombia and the Netherlands in water-related projects goes way back to at least 1973 (NEDECO, 1973).

Now, what’s this ‘Building with Nature’ idea they’re promoting? In the Netherlands, it’s a way of managing water and coasts. It involves using natural processes and flexible measures to make projects more resilient (Rozemeijer, 2013). What is attractive is that it can be even cheaper than traditional methods and respects natural balances (see Rozemeijer, 2013).

But here’s the catch: in practice, implementing nature-based solutions hasn’t been very successful in Colombia. Most of the Atlantic coast is still covered in hard structures (Rangel-Buitrago, 2020). So, Dutch consultants were sent to Colombia to advise the local government on ‘Building with Nature’. But it wasn’t as easy as just applying Dutch methods to Colombian problems.

The case study showed that Dutch consultants play a significant role in spreading ideas about water management and ‘Building with Nature’. However, there’s still room for improvement in recognizing local knowledge and expertise. While Dutch consultants follow principles like participation and social inclusion, they need to adapt even more to the Colombian context.

Some interviewees pointed out that consultants did a good job of raising awareness about the problems and potential solutions, and that they also worked closely with the community to incorporate local ideas. In recent projects, consultants engaged local stakeholders through workshops and other means to understand their views and feelings about the projects. This helped the Dutch consultants tailor their knowledge and skills to the local context.

Over time, more team members from the Dutch consultancy teams started speaking Spanish, making communication easier. But some still felt that it was essential for key participants to speak Spanish. Some even suggested that Dutch consultancy firms should hire people from Colombia or at least from a similar region for projects in the country.

One thing that almost everyone agreed on was the crucial role of Colombian local consultants. They were often the key to successful projects, going beyond technical advice to mediate with local communities, engage stakeholders, and bridge the gap between Dutch knowledge and local realities. Some even called them the “parachute” or “lifesavers” of the projects.

One main take-away was that Colombian expertise and collaboration were essential for making these Dutch-Colombian consultancy cooperation projects work, and it’s something that should be encouraged from the very beginning of any consultancy project.

Where do we go from here?

What does this mean for the consultancy sector? And what does it mean for someone like me, a researcher, and someone who has been a consultant and will probably be one in the future?

Well, consultants find themselves in a bit of a tight spot. They’re the middle players between clients, beneficiaries, communities, and others, tasked with moving projects forward. They’re hired to advise on and put into action solutions based on concepts like resilience, IWRM, and Building with Nature. However, these concepts aren’t always crystal clear or universally defined. So, consultants often have to interpret them, drawing from their own perspectives and backgrounds while juggling the interests of numerous stakeholders and navigating different contexts. It’s a tricky situation, but one with significant impact. Most importantly, it comes with great responsibility in our global system. The responsibility to apply these ideas fairly across a wide range of situations.

So, the key message here is about the responsibilities that fall on consultants and a call for them to be ‘reflexive’ practitioners. In other words, they should constantly question and reflect on the ideas they’re applying and how they’re doing it, especially when they’re working in less familiar contexts. One of the takeaways from NEWAVE is that consultants should practice this reflexivity, probing their own standpoint. They should ask themselves, “Who am I? How does my worldview shape how I see this situation? How can I broaden my perspective on an idea or problem I’m asked to solve? Should I bring in other partners with different perspectives?”

As I once heard from a Microsoft CEO in China a decade ago, “Innovation occurs with diversity.” My takeaway from this is that true innovation happens when we involve people with diverse backgrounds and ideas, as they help us ask the right questions in the first place.

In short, this is only a sample of the lessons I’ve gathered from my research and past work in the consultancy industry. I would also like to mention and express my gratitude to Master students Gaia Zanzi and Olga Popescu for their support in the cases of Global Resilience and Colombia.

If you’re looking for more insights on how to encourage and practice reflexivity, I invite you to explore our policy brief on “Fostering Reflexivity in Water Governance – Perspectives from Early Stage Researchers”.