Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.

org on January 13, 2014

The governance dimensions of water security: a review

Karen Bakker and Cynthia Morinville Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 2013 371, 20130116, published 30 September 2013

References Subject collections

This article cites 98 articles, 6 of which can be accessed free

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/371/2002/201301 16.full.html#ref-list-1 Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections hydrology (37 articles)

Email alerting service

Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article - sign up in the box at the top right-hand corner of the article or click here

To subscribe to Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A go to: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/subscriptions

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

The governance dimensions of water security: a review

Karen Bakker and Cynthia Morinville
rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org
Program on Water Governance, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, The University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
Water governance is critical to water security, and to the long-term sustainability of the Earths freshwater systems. This review examines recent debates regarding the governance dimensions of water security, including adaptive governance, polycentric governance, social learning and multilevel governance. The analysis emphasizes the political and institutional dimensions of water governance, and explores the relevance of social poweran overlooked yet important aspect of the water security debate. In addition, the review explores the intersection and potential synergies between water governance perspectives and risk-based approaches to water security, and offers critiques and suggestions for further research questions and agendas.

Research
Cite this article: Bakker K, Morinville C. 2013 The governance dimensions of water security: a review. Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2013.0116

One contribution of 16 to a Theme Issue Water security, risk and society.

Subject Areas: hydrology Keywords: water, governance, water security, social power Author for correspondence: Karen Bakker e-mail: karen.bakker@ubc.ca

1. Introduction
The issue of water securitydened as an acceptable level of water-related risks to humans and ecosystems, coupled with the availability of water of sufcient quantity and quality to support livelihoods, national security, human health and ecosystem serviceshas been the object of increased academic and policy interest over the past decade [1,2]. Simultaneously, water governancedened as the range of political, organizational and administrative processes through which community interests are articulated, their input is incorporated, decisions are made and implemented, and decision-makers are held accountable in the development and management of water resources and delivery of water services [3]has been increasingly recognized as a critical contributor to the long-term sustainability of water resources [46]. Relatively little attention has, however, been paid to the governance dimensions of water security, a gap which this review addresses, through presenting a review of recent relevant debates, and exploring questions for further research. 2013 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. All rights reserved.

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

The analysis presented below summarizes major contributions to the literature to date, and identies questions for future research, covering a range of concepts, including: adaptive governance, polycentric governance, social learning, multi-level governance and social power. It is important to note that these dimensions of water security, while treated separately for the sake of conceptual clarity, are characterized by signicant overlaps in practice. For example, the introduction of multi-level water governance (e.g. via devolution to lower scales of management) is often associated with polycentric governance (e.g. increased citizen participation, new decisionmaking processes and new types of stakeholders) [711]. By considering each of these concepts in turn, we hope to introduce a degree of conceptual clarity into the discussion of the governance dimensions of water security. Prior to this, we begin with a discussion of the synergies and distinctions between water security and integrated water resources management (IWRM) perspectives, with the goal of identifying the ways in which a water security perspective might differ, in an innovative fashion, from conventional IWRM approaches.

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116

......................................................

concept water security

definition acceptable level of water-related risks to humans and ecosystems, coupled with the availability of water of sufficient quantity and quality to support livelihoods, national security, human health and ecosystem services [1,2]

water governance

range of political, organizational and administrative processes through which community interests are articulated, their input is incorporated, decisions are made and implemented, and decision-makers are held accountable in the development and management of water resources and delivery of water services [3] form of social coordination in which governance relies on networks that connect individuals, organizations, agencies and institutions at multiple organizational levels; nested polycentric institutional and decision-making arrangements; and collaborative,

adaptive governance

polycentric governance social learning multi-level governance

flexible, learning-based approaches to management (adapted from [12]) approach to decision-making comprising several independent centres and actors [13] exploratory and iterative process of learning by doing whereby actors share experiences and ideas to remove constraints and resolve complex issues [1416] negotiated, non-hierarchical exchanges between institutions at the transnational, national, regional and local levels, including relationships between governance processes at these different levels [17]

harmonization subsidiarity

process of achieving regulatory efficiency, effectiveness and clarity through legislative and policy standardization and centralization principle whereby a central authority does not take action (except in the areas which fall within its exclusive competence) unless it is more effective than action taken at lower scales

..........................................................................................................................................................................................................

2. Water security versus integrated water resources management

Water security has been the subject of growing interest on the part of academic researchers over the past decade (gure 1). The concept of water security has been taken up in a broad range of disciplines across the social, natural and medical sciences [2]. Indeed, as gure 1 demonstrates, references to water security in the academic literature are nearly as prevalent as references to IWRMa concept that dates back to the early twentieth century and which has arguably been the

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

water security/water insecurity integrated water resources management (IWRM) water governance

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116

......................................................

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Figure 1. Academic publications per year: water security (insecurity), IWRM and water governance (20002013). Source: updated and integrated from [1,2]. Web of Sciences, accessed 26 March 2013. Available at http://wokinfo.com/ products_tools/multidisciplinary/webofscience/.

dominant paradigm for water management for the past several decades [18].1 Figure 1 similarly illustrates the increasing number of references to water governance over the last decade; this is, in turn, likely to be associated with the growing interest in questions of governance more generally. Despite IWRM remaining an inuential paradigm for water-related research, gure 1 also suggests that scholarly interest is increasingly divided among three concepts (i.e. water security, water governance and IWRM), in the context of an upward trend in overall activity in water-related research over the past decade. Water security shares key concepts in common with the IWRM paradigm [26], dened as the unied or holistic management of water, land and other natural resources within the boundaries of entire river basins, watersheds or catchment areas [19, p. 32].2 For example, both water security and IWRM emphasize linkages among sectors and between ecosystem and human health [29]. However, our interest in this review paper is in identifying the ways in which the governance dimensions of a water security perspective might differ, in an innovative fashion, from conventional IWRM approaches. In this regard, it is relevant to note that IWRM often emphasizes the importance of comprehensive management [25], whereas water security proponents emphasize uncertainty in our knowledge of (and ability to control) fresh water systems [20,21]. Furthermore, a water security perspective implies a focus on identifying, anticipating and responding to risk (weather or water-related shocks, threats or tipping points). A water security perspective also emphasizes the importance of thresholds, beyond which the resilience of coupled socio-ecological systems is threatened [30,31]. Some scholars have argued that the constructive ambiguity of IWRM has enabled some weak sustainability interpretations to occlude or evade the issue of mitigating and/or preventing specic threats, and confronting thresholds or limits (beyond which a community, for example, might be considered water insecure) [2,32]. A water security approach, in contrast, prioritizes thresholds; indeed, the question of thresholds and acceptable levels of risk is, one could argue, central to the broader debate over environmental security. In contrast to IWRM, a water security
1 Some argue that IWRM originated in the early twentieth century in the context of river basin management [1924]. Others argue that IWRM is a newer concept, arising following the 1992 International Conference on Water and the Environment, Dublin [25]. 2 The Global Water Partnership denition is also frequently cited: IWRM is a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximise the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital eco-systems [27,28].

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

approach thus usually places greater emphasis on what Rockstrm et al. [30,31] term a safe operating space for humanity. Here arises an important distinction between water security and IWRM perspectives. An IWRM perspective implies that water needs might be subjugated to landuse decisions; and moreover emphasizes the centrality of compromise between social equity, ecological integrity and economic growth. By contrast, a water security perspective emphasizes the primacy of water protection, often associated with an emphasis on minimum (or maximum) thresholds, acceptable levels of risk and reductions in vulnerability. From the latter perspective, compromise is not always possible or desirable. In practice, of course, the distinctions between water security and IWRM are harder to draw (and, indeed, some might argue that water security is a complement to, or natural evolution of, IWRM). Many policy initiatives, in particular, contain aspects of both water security and IWRM approaches. For example, the European Water Framework Directive (WFD) emphasizes the importance of integrated watershed management (in line with IWRM), but also establishes thresholds (e.g. objectives and minimum standard levels for pollution of surface and groundwater resulting from emissions from all potential sources). Furthermore, while acknowledging that some control can be achieved through measurement at the source, the WFD recognizes that the risk and damage potential of chemical pollution is cumulative, and thus favours a combined approach, seeking to establish thresholds for cumulative impacts on fresh water bodies, which, in turn, serve as a guide for action on pollutant load reduction (prioritized on a risk basis) [33]. Nonetheless, the conceptual distinction is important, insofar as water security perspectives may be gradually complementing or even supplanting IWRM approaches (as one interpretation of gure 1 might suggest). Another distinction between IWRM and water security approaches is that the latter also tends to place emphasis on the need for adaptive management, as a responsive approach that can reduce vulnerability and increase resilience in the context of evolving uncertainty. IWRM perspectives often stress the importance of comprehensive management in the context of tradeoffs between protection of ecosystems and economic development (in line with the Brundtland Report-inspired conceptualization of sustainable development) [34]. By contrast, water security approaches are more closely associated with critiques of conventional command-and-control approaches to ecosystem management [35], often predicated on a systems perspective view that water (and indeed environmental) governance is a complex system that interacts with biophysical, technological and social systems [36]. An important premise from systems theory follows: a degree of uncertainty is inherent in the management of such complex systems, to which governance frameworks (and managers) must adapt. This, in turn, justies the concept of adaptive management, dened as a form of social coordination in which governance relies on networks that connect individuals, organizations, agencies and institutions at multiple organizational levels; nested polycentric institutional and decision-making arrangements; and collaborative, exible, learning-based approaches to management (adapted from [12]). What are the implications of adopting an adaptive management approach to water security (as opposed to a comprehensive management approach to IWRM)? First, adaptive management implies a greater degree of polycentrism in governance, in which a broader range of nongovernmental actors and stakeholders play a role in decision-making. This implies polycentrism in research, as adaptive management implies the need for multi-disciplinary analyses of socio-ecological systems, simultaneously drawing on social science and ecological science perspectives.3 Equally important, this implies polycentrism in water management, given that a key justication for polycentric governance is the argument that social learning is enabled and improved through the involvement of a greater diversity of actors in on-the-ground management and decision-making processes. This justication underpins, for example, calls for public participation in environmental governance, a trend which is increasingly due to multiple factors, including awareness of the expertise available outside of government agencies, new
3 See, for example, the journal Ecology and Society (formerly the Journal of Conservation Biology) and the work of the Resilience Alliance.

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116

......................................................

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

approaches to citizen participation in environmental management more generally, and socioeconomic restructuring in the context of neoliberalism [3739]. From this perspective (and as explored below), environmental management processes that incorporate polycentric governance and social learning strategiesin turn facilitating the adaptation of management practices in response to changing socio-environmental conditionsare considered to be desirable. Polycentrism implies the involvement of multiple actors at multiple scales; hence, a second innovative aspect of a water security approach is the emphasis on multi-level governance. As explored in greater detail below, multi-level governance processes (e.g. multi-stakeholder watershed management platforms) have been initiated in many jurisdictions for a variety of reasons, including increased emphasis on watershed-based and integrated management of environmental issues, awareness of the multi-level causes and impacts of water-related threats (particularly, although not uniquely, with regard to the waterenergyfood nexus), and concern over the implications of climate change for water resourcesthe study and mitigation of which is necessarily multi-scalar. This provides a distinct contrast to the watershed-focused emphasis of IWRM. This discussion of multi-level governance suggests a third innovative aspect of the governance dimensions of a water security perspective: attentiveness to issues of social power. Given the threats to human and environmental security mentioned above, the water security debate is characterized by preoccupation with the likelihood of both violent and non-violent conicts [40], as demonstrated by recent debates over the water-related implications of the global land grab [41]. The existence of these conicts underscores the need for robust, multi-level and polycentric governance mechanisms and processes of social learning designed to mitigate tradeoffs and resolve conicts between users, sectors and nation-states [42], and also calls attention to the social, political and institutional aspects of water governance. Debates over water security thus emphasize the multi-scalar, complex nature of global conicts at the nexus of rapidly growing water, energy and food demands in the context of globalized trade in commodities (and virtual water), in which the existence of robust watershed-based mechanisms is a necessary but probably insufcient condition for conict mitigation and resolution. In summary, a comparison of water security and IWRM approaches suggests that there are (at least) three innovative governance dimensions of the water security paradigm that merit further analysis. First, water security perspectives emphasize the inherent uncertainty in the management of complex socio-ecological systems, and thus foreground an adaptive management paradigm, in which polycentric governance fosters social learning (and hence robust adaptation). Second, water security perspectives emphasize multi-scalar linkages within and beyond the watershed, which is neither the sole nor (often) the primary unit of analysis and water management. Third, water security emphasizes the centrality of social power, in a variety of modalities (both legal and illegal) and scales (from the local to supranational), in negotiating conicts generated by tensions at the waterenergyfood nexus. Below, we explore each of these three innovative governance dimensions of water security in turn.

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116

......................................................

3. Adaptive governance and water security: the potential contributions of polycentric governance and social learning
Adaptive governance has recently attracted a growing amount of interest as a promising strategy for contemporary resource management contexts characterized by complexity and uncertainty. This is particularly the case given global climate change, which simultaneously threatens the short- and long-term sustainability of resources such as the worlds freshwater supplies [3,13,4345]. Two interrelated concepts are at the core of the adaptive governance framework: polycentric governance and social learning. We discuss each of these concepts in turn. Polycentric governance, which can be traced back to Ostrom et al. [36], is dened as an approach to decision-making comprising several independent centres and actors [13]. Proponents argue polycentric governance systemsespecially those with enough redundancyare better

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

suited to respond to changes and uncertainties, making them more resilient than mono-centric governance systems [45]. This echoes critiques from the natural sciences (notably from ecology and conservation biology) regarding the pitfalls of command-and-control management approaches, and the need for adaptive management that supports resilience in socioenvironmental systems [35].4 These approaches emphasize the complexity of such systems, and hence their inherent uncertainty, while warning that complexity must not be deployed as an excuse for inaction but should rather be understood as an important contextual guide for the design of decision-making processes. Building on these critiques of command-andcontrol management, adaptive management was subsequently developed as a paradigm (which deliberately contrasted with command-and-control management) better suited to environmental governance in the context of uncertainty [51,52]. This focus on polycentric governance parallels recent debates over the putative shifts from conventional government towards governance in resource management, political science and public administration more broadly. Such a transition is often associated with devolution processes, whereby managerial responsibilities are increasingly borne at the local scale (as outlined above) as well as with a redistribution of decision-making power among the various scales and social actors. In many accounts, polycentric governance also implies that nongovernmental (and particularly community) actors play a more signicant role in environmental management than in the past [5357]. One of the major advantages of polycentric governance, according to its proponents, is the degree to which social learning is facilitated, in turn supporting adaptation, improving resilience and increasing water security [1416]. Following from a recognition of a need to implement policies despite the uncertainty, unpredictability and frequent lack of comprehensive knowledge associated with contemporary water management contexts, proponents dene social learning as an exploratory and iterative process of learning by doing whereby actors share experiences and ideas to remove constraints and resolve complex issues [14,15]. In other words, water management is dened as a trial-and-error process through which feedback loops allow the system to learn from the outcomes of previously implemented policies [12,14,43,46]. Social learning also emphasizes the role of informal actors and shadow networks in providing novel management and governance ideas that challenge the frames of reference or status quo of a particular governance structure [5860]. For example, Pahl-Wostl et al. [58] demonstrate that the some polycentric water governance initiatives may foster the integration of social, natural and engineering perspectives (and also between soft and hard approaches), allowing social learning to occur. As this example suggests, a focus on increasing collaboration between actors is implicit in both polycentric governance and social learning discussions. Increasing collaboration, in turn, increases adaptive capacity of governance systems, which will bring about greater resiliencea desirable goal, given shocks (rapid and extreme changes to systems) which we facein turn enhancing short- and long-term water security for all stakeholders and users involved [43]. Increased resilience, of course, depends on the integration of water and land management, in turn implying the establishment of more complex governance structures enhancing redundancy but also potentially complicating decision-making processes and the achievement of a shared vision and goals among stakeholders. In other words, adaptive governance requires increased collaboration, but the complexity of socio-environmental systems poses challenges to such collaboration. This suggests a series of potential outstanding issues and criticisms facing adaptive governance strategies, as explored below. First, how feasible is the implementation of the strategies outlined above? What are the possible limitations to operationalizing strategies of adaptive governance beyond their analytical potential? In a context in which water governance systems are often working with limited resources and decision-making institutions are being
4

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116

......................................................

Adaptive water governance is also related to parallel discussions on adaptive co-management [15,44,46] that have been taking place in resource management scholarship since the 1970s [43,4750].

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

criticized as cumbersome bureaucracies with overlapping structures, adaptive governance strategies and a focus on multi-stakeholder collaboration, redundancy and social learning opportunities seem perhaps incongruous. Second, what could a focus on adaptive governance be missing? Adaptive governance might imply an increased focus on adaptation but reduced emphasis on mitigation. Compare, for example, the emphasis on adaptation and mitigation strategies in discussions related to global climate change ([6163] for water resource-specic accounts) versus the focus on adaptation characteristic of water governance literature (at the expense, one might argue, of mitigation of water insecurities through explicit attention to underlying factors and causes of such insecurities). We consider it worthwhile to ask what a clear focus on mitigation might imply for water security. For example, it may align adaptive governance more directly with the premises and practices of adaptive co-management models used in other resource sectors. Our third and nal critique asks: does a focus on social learning potentially occlude the importance of power dynamics between the actors involved? Despite promising efforts by adaptive governance literature to recognize the role of power [13,14,64], few accounts extend their concerns and exploration of power disparities beyond the inclusion of informal and marginalized actors. Could an emphasis on social learning serve to obscure the power imbalances between legitimate actors in water governance contexts? What might the implications be for water security? We turn to the question of power relations between such actors in the nal section, prior to which we consider issues of multi-level governance.

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116

......................................................

4. Multi-level governance and water security

Water security debates include several (at times competing) perspectives when it comes to the issue of scale. Research in different disciplines tends to prioritize different scales: for example, hydrologists focus on the watershed, whereas political scientists tend to focus on the nation-state [2]. Proponents of the national-scale perspective argue that water should be managed in line with national interests, for the benet of the national economy and the countrys population [65]. For example, Egypt has recently declared the Nile River a matter of national security, and other countries have proposed denitions of water security. However, there appears to be a high degree of variation in denitions across jurisdictions. In a review of the concept of water security, Cook & Bakker [2] discuss such variegation between contexts such as Australia, where water security is dened as an issue of water availability on a watershed basis, versus the Middle East and North Africa region, where discussions are generally focused on regional-based sharing of scarce resources in the face of increasing demand and geopolitical tensions. This divergence of approaches is of interest, given that the watershed (or river basin) scale has received much attention within water management debates over the past few decades. Watershed-based governance has been initiated in numerous countries, often associated with appeals for increased citizen participation (see [10,6676], for examples from South Africa; [39], for the Lower Mekong basin; [77], for Chile; [78], for New Zealand; [79], for India; and [4], for a review of 29 cases from Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia). A water security perspective, in contrast, implies the rescaling of governancea suggestion that some water researchers and practitioners have welcomed, as the tendency of different scientic disciplines to conduct waterrelated research at different scales presents signicant challenges to interdisciplinary research on water security [2]. Many practitioners have also welcomed multi-level governance, given their long-standing concern regarding scalar mismatches (or scalar failures), which refer to situations in which a lack of coordination between scales weakens water governance institutions and undermines efcient and effective water management. Multi-level governance often entails a process of rescaling along one or more of three axes: up from nation states, down to local levels of government (e.g. the delegation of responsibility to municipalities), and out from geopolitical units (e.g. the nation-state, the province, the state, the parish) to new scales (e.g. watersheds) [53,8084]. This concept provides a welcome alternative to singular scale

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

analyses and particularly state-centric analyses, insofar as it assumes a priori the importance of addressing scalar interdependencies and cross-scale policy externalities [18,8595]. These rescaling processes are not, of course, mutually dependent nor are they unidirectional or spatiotemporally homogeneous. Nonetheless, a distinct trend is discernible and has underpinned changes in the practices and processes of water governance in a variety of locales [11,18,85]. In many instances, these watershed-based approaches have been developed in tandem with regional and/or transboundary approaches to water governance. For example, Zeitoun et al. [96,97] offer an analysis of cooperation and conict between riparian countries of the Upper Jordan River, arguing that greater water security will be achieved through focusing on the international watershed scale, as a means of fostering collaboration processes between different nation-states. From a water security perspective, these scalar discussions and rescaling processes and the emergence of multiple models of multi-level governance (which parallel broader trends in environmental governance more generally) raise three interrelated critiques. First, it is important to acknowledge the utility and limitations of any particular scale of governance. One pertinent example in this respect is that of watershed governance. Discussions in the water governance literature often indicate the benets of addressing environmental issues on a watershed basis [88,98,99]. A common, yet at times implicit, presumption in the literature is that human, environmental and social decisions can be integrated through watershed-level governance instruments in ways that may not be possible through conventional national political jurisdictions. In many instances, these assumptions are legitimated through appeals to the IWRM literature. IWRM proponents often assert the necessity of multi-agency integrated management of land and water resources on a watershed basis, thereby implying governance across jurisdictional and political boundaries and prioritizing the involvement of multiple local actors in water management [20,21,100]. However, critics have argued that the adoption of the watershed as a scale for governance ultimately results in the conation of governance tools, hydrological boundaries and IWRM [66,71], limiting the effectiveness of governance processes due to the articial constraints posed by a local focus. The second point follows: although multi-level governance approaches often prioritize the watershed as the primary scale for decision-making, the watershed is not necessarily the optimal scale from which to address complex water security challenges. For example, energywater security trade-offs (often referred to as the waterfoodenergy nexus) [101] are recognized to be of increasing urgency, particularly given the growing importance of virtual water ows, notably those associated with global trade [102]. Given the multiple scales at whichand spatial and temporal distanciation via whichthese trade-offs occur, reliance on watershed management alone may be insufcient. This is exacerbated by the fact that subsurface hydrological gradients may not correspond with surface topographynecessitating multi-level and integrated analyses of surface and groundwater [103]. In short, a watershed-focused approach is important but perhaps insufcient for adequately addressing the water security challenge: balancing human and environmental water needs in order to safeguard essential ecosystem services and biodiversity across the global water system [71]. A third critique relates to the issue of polycentric governance discussed above, insofar as proponents of watershed governance often invoke the claim that local or community control is necessarily positive [104108]. Watershed governance is often advocated as a means for improving efciency, access and sustainability [18,84,85,109112], yet various authors note that it is important to retain a healthy scepticism regarding the extent of rescaling, which may in some instances be what Ribot [113] terms a charade. Indeed, despite apparent rescaling to the local level, decision-making power may remain situated with government-led processes in provincial or national capitalsas states can be loath to share real power. For example, Norman & Bakkers [114] study of transboundary water demonstrates that states retain power despite the ostensible rescaling of CanadaUSA transboundary resources to the local scaleseverely curtailing the power of local actors. The critique follows: to what degree does rescaling necessarily empower actors at local scales (e.g. the neighbourhood, the region or the watershed) [104108]?

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116

......................................................

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

Warners [71] empirical analysis of multi-stakeholder platforms (MSPs) at the watershed level underscores this issue. Warners detailed analysis of MSP processes highlights the reluctance of power holders to share their decision-making responsibilities. Similarly, the limited legal powers conferred upon MSPs (frequently the case in watershed governance processes) constrain their capacity for concrete actionreducing their role to a dissemination platform. Further, Warner argues, the disjuncture between participants expectations and MSP performance quickly results in disillusionment. Thus Warner contends that, while multistakeholder governance initiatives such as the MSP might be exciting and popular, the framework is not a panacea. Rather, specic criteriasuch as substantive delegation of decision-making power, inclusion, sustainable funding, trust between participants and science-based decisionmakingare necessary preconditions for successful multi-stakeholder governance processes. A water security perspective implies, in other words, the need for multi-scalar governance. Yet this raises a new set of questions. One relevant issue is the compatibility of international water law regimes with water security, and their potential to create a sufciently robust context for water security. In a review of the concept of water security and international law, for example, Leb & Wouters [115] argue that, on the one hand, a focus on national security questions linked with issues such as scarcity and upstream pollution may lead to what they call the securitization of water in which water is located at the centre of politicization (and militarization) processes likely to exacerbate regional and global insecurity. On the other hand, their review of international legislation, protocols, treaties and agreements, such as the 1992 UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, suggests that there is the potential for an alternative view of water security, based on resource management principles to be addressed jointly, via cooperation among nation-states (see also [116,117]). Similarly, in his review of transnational water governance, Conca [18] traces the emergence of a global regime of international waters culminating, in his reading, with the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention. While recognizing that the core principles of the convention are essential to the long-term protection of international water bodies, Conca nonetheless highlights several of its limitations and suggests that the convention also fails to address central and contentious issues and thus might be more about designing acceptable interstate deals than about safeguarding water security. The preceding critiques provide useful caveats regarding the potential of rescaling processes and multi-level governance for questions of water security. Namely, the critiques draw attention to the conceptual pitfalls of the local trap: the assumption that the local scale, local actors and local organizations (however dened) are normatively better environmental stewards [118] or that rescaling necessarily empowers local actors. They also suggest that a focus on the international scale similarly raises issues for water governance (albeit different from those associated with the watershed). While rescaling processes and multi-level governance approaches offer important avenues to pursue water security (at multiple scales), several limitations remain. This, in turn, suggests the need for a nuanced approach to such governance dimensions of water security, especially given that the creation of new spaces and institutions through rescaling processes often entails (contested and incomplete) transformations in networks of hierarchy and power [83,119,120]an issue which we explore in the following section.

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116

......................................................

5. Political and institutional dimensions of water security: the issue of social power
Questions of social power are central dimensions of water security debates, insofar as insecurity arises not only through poor management decisions, suboptimal governance processes, insufcient science and evolving environmental pressures, but also through power relations, confrontation (whether violent or non-violent) and competition between political and socioeconomic interests with respect to land and water ownership and control. Attention to the

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

political and institutional dimensions of water governance as well as to questions of social power, as we explore below, thus represents an important area of focus for water security perspectives. In a review of the causal structure of famine, Watts & Bohle [121] follow Chamberss [122] denition of vulnerability and highlight three basic aspects: (i) the risk of exposure to crisis, stress and shocks; (ii) the risk of inadequate capacities to cope with stress, crisis and shocks; and (iii) the risk of severe consequences of crisis, risk and shocks. Furthermore, building on Sens [123] concept of entitlements, which recognizes that experiences of famine often have more to do with individuals lack of entitlements rather than a decline in absolute food availability, Watts & Bohle [121, p. 47] conceptualize vulnerability as the risks associated with large-scale entitlement deprivation [which are] often posed as a function of market perturbations or market imperfection. In this sense, from a governance perspective, vulnerabilityor exposure to risks and insecuritiesalso involves questions of social power. Watts and Bohle [121], drawing on Kent [124], further discuss how, from an empowerment approach, vulnerability (and thus insecurity) also arise from powerlessness vis--vis decision-making processes. Vulnerability can thus arise from a lack of rights (property rights and political rights to make claims on the state, in particular), which again illustrates the importance of social power.5 Building on this research, a substantive body of scholarship has demonstrated how power dynamicsshaped by factors such as gender, race, caste and classinuence water allocation and hence water security [8,79,126130]. For example, through a case study of water access and arsenic contamination in Bangladesh, Sultana [128] contends that subjectivities are reproduced through use, control and access to (different types of) water resources, thereby reinforcing inequities. Specically, Sultanas study shows how relations to water resources are impacted by (gendered) identities and everyday practices in ways that heighten exposure to arsenic poisoning for some women and their families. As depicted by this case study, water insecurity arises not only through poor management, governance decisions and other technical factorsas it is often highlighted in the water governance literaturebut also through social relations. A similar point is made by Islar [131], in the context of land and water grabbing. In a study of privatized small-scale hydropower development in Turkey, Islar illustrates the linkages between processes of land and water grabbing and the denial of water rights resulting from recent hydropower development. Her analysis highlights the linkages between what she considers neoliberal development processes, a lack of rights and entitlements and the resulting insecurities for both river ecosystems and the livelihoods of the communities living along and relying on those rivers. Islars case study makes a more general point: in many cases, access to water resources might even be driving land enclosure processes (see also [41,132,133]). Access to water for irrigation, mining activities or hydropower development is often an important but silent issue in large-scale land deals, which are often negotiated directly between national governments and purchasers in the absence of consultation with local actors, in turn resulting in exacerbated water insecurity for local populations. In short, social power is a key factor in explaining water insecurity. Yet the converse is equally true: social power is an enabling condition for water security. Ostroms [37] seminal analysis of the commons (or common-pool resource management), for example, demonstrates that, under specic conditions, cooperation and collective action can lead to the sustainable management of common-pool resources, including water. Similarly, Wolfs [134] review of transboundary river basins and associated management bodies or treaties established in each context underlines the potential for cooperation in instances of shared management of water resources [90,134136]. This is particularly true given that water wars are not strategically rational, hydrographically effective or economically viable, and thus shared interests and the benets of cooperation outweigh
5 This point provides a useful insight and suggests that risk-based frameworks might offer a useful approach as they allow for the inclusion of both social and physical variables as well as multiple stakeholders at multiple scales, while creating a shared analytical basis for decision making regarding water-related trade-offs and conicts [125]. It is not clear, however, how risk-based frameworks might resolve inequities that are rooted in social power; at the very least, without considering social power, they risk the same pitfalls as conventional approaches.

10

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116

......................................................

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

conict-inducing characteristics [134]. Zeitoun & Warner [97] inject a note of caution, however, in arguing that traditional water governance approaches tend to treat cooperation (collaboration or co-management) as unproblematic in contexts marked by power asymmetries [97]. Rather, they suggest, both scholars and practitioners should be attentive to potential power disparities and inequalitieseven in instances of apparently successful water governance. These examples highlight the importance of analysing the concentration of power via articulated processes of accumulation and governanceparticularly when they entrench and reproduce power imbalances through (in)access to resources. An important caveat to this statement is the recognition that the states role in resource allocation is often complex. For example, Fergusons [137] analysis of the unintended consequences of development (in a case study of failed hydrodevelopment projects in Lesotho) underscores how failure to meet stated goals further legitimizes state (and capitalist) interventions through the implementation of new development projectswhich further exacerbate inequality. Fairhead & Leachs [138] study of desertication in Guinea demonstrates how contemporary analyses misread landscape processes and thereby misattributed the causes of desertication to population growth and overutilization of forest resources by local communities. Yet, these conclusions were mobilized by state and international actors to justify development interventions, often viewed as a (mis)appropriation of local resources by local actors and exacerbating desertication (in Fairhead & Leachs reading). These cases provide examples of instances in which power relations are highly complex, and do not necessarily operate in direct alignment with specic stakeholders identities and agendas. One reason for this complexity (which social scientists might term a lack of legibility) is the articulation of governance processes with technical discourses. Anthropological perspectives such as Lis [139] concept of rendering technical offer productive avenues to query the implication of conning these discussions (including those regarding water security) to the technical realm. An overemphasis on technical issues may, in this sense, contribute to a view of governance as a (straightforward) recipe [64]. Viewing governance in technical or formulaic terms, in other words, runs the risk of overlooking context and power dynamics that shape governance in crucial ways. By contrast, a social power perspective on water security contends that water insecurity arises not only as a result of technical factors, but also as a result of power relations and socio-economic and political dynamics. As we have shown, water governance processes are characterized by signicant power asymmetries. This implies that attempts to reduce water insecurity must grapple not only with issues of scale, social learning and articulation of decision-making between multiple actors but also with the dynamics of social power and social relations.

11

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116

......................................................

6. Conclusion
This review paper has explored the governance dimensions of water security debates. On the one hand, the paper has brought a water security focus to bear on key concepts within water governance debates: adaptive governance, polycentric governance, multi-level governance, social learning and social power. On the other hand, we have emphasized the governance dimensions of water security debates, raising a set of questions that may be germane to future research in this area, which we list below. On the topic of social power: what are the consequences of power imbalances with respect to equitable water access? Do state-dominated governance practices play a role in creating a level playing eld in which such power imbalances are mitigated? If so, the appropriate (and continuing) responsibility of states should be a central question in the debate over the place that adaptive and multi-level governance should play in addressing water security. For example, could states play an important part in levelling the eld between different actors in polycentric governance processes, or would other non-governmental actors assume such responsibilities?

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

In turn, this raises a related set of questions regarding the negotiation of polycentric and multi-level governance processes. Here, we wish to sound a cautionary note: despite the potential advantages of polycentric and multi-level governance for supporting adaptive management and social learning, it is not always the case that they will be practical or appropriate approaches. In particular, two key questions must be asked. First, do the potential advantages of polycentric and multi-level water governance outweigh the disadvantages? On the one hand, practitioners may be attracted by the possible advantages: access to local expertise, which can improve the quality of decision-making; the ability to adapt regulatory programmes to meet local conditions; empowerment of stakeholders (particularly those traditionally marginalized); reinforcement of social trust between stakeholders, and reduction of conict over competing uses; greater cooperation in information sharing; greater political legitimacy (and thus enforceability) of water management planning outcomes. But these must be weighed against potential disadvantages: a focus on local environmental interests to the exclusion of regional or national environmental concerns; a risk of politically workable solutions, rather than environmentally optimal solutions; unequal representation of stakeholders at the local level; long-term sustainability undermined by large amounts of volunteer time required (burnout); greater overall costs and more time required to produce outcomes, such as water use or watershed plans. Second, which aspects of water-related governance should remain under the control of state actors? As highlighted above, polycentric and multi-level governance are likely to be appropriate when exploring integrated solutions for complex problems that traditional command-and-control programmes have been unable to address (such as non-point source pollution and urban run-off control, agricultural practices reform, or integrated land- and water-use planning); however, this does not imply that all decision-making should be necessarily distributed or articulated among multiple scales or non-state actors. For example, governments may wish to retain control over key aspects of setting regulatory standards (e.g. water quality, particularly with respect to ecological concerns). Once these standards are set, it may be benecial to delegate specic decisions (e.g. regarding land- and water-use practices or the sequencing of restoration or water improvement projects). Similarly, if targets are set for water use (e.g. low-ow limits in streams), including restrictions on demand, it may be appropriate to delegate decisions about strategies for water conservation, recycling and reuseparticularly where enabling laws are to be adopted by a number of different jurisdictions at various scales. In short, achieving water security requires coordinating actors within the context of overarching water-related standards and targetsbacked up by legislation and associated regulations and monitoring and enforcement powerswhich may be optimally designed and set by higher orders of government rather than local actors. Another, simpler way to articulate this argument is to assert that reducing water insecurity requires an adaptive approach to water governance, viewed as a constantly evolving process in which subsidiarity and harmonization must be balanced. Harmonization may be dened as the process of achieving regulatory efciency, effectiveness and clarity through legislative and policy standardization and centralization. Subsidiarity is dened as the principle whereby a central authority does not take action (except in the areas which fall within its exclusive competence) unless it is more effective than action taken at lower scales. The deployment of polycentric and multi-level governance strategies must strive to achieve an appropriate balance (which may be different in each jurisdiction) between harmonization and subsidiarity in support of increased water security. As this review has highlighted, this balance is likely to be a moving target, necessitating the incorporation of exibility and resilience in the design of our governance systemsmimicking the characteristics we seek to foster in socio-environmental systems more generally.

12

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116

......................................................

References
1. Bakker K. 2012 Water security: research challenges and opportunities. Science 337, 914915. (doi:10.1126/science.1226337)

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

2. Cook C, Bakker K. 2012 Water security: debating an emerging paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 94102. (doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.011) 3. Bakker K. 2003 Good governance in restructuring water supply: a handbook, p. 2. Ottawa, Canada: Federation of Canadian Municipalities. 4. Pahl-Wostl C, Lebel L, Knieper C, Nikitina E. 2012 From applying panaceas to mastering complexity: toward adaptive water governance in river basins. Environ. Sci. Policy 23, 2434. (doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.014) 5. Armitage D, Marschke M, Plummer R. 2008 Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Glob. Environ. Change 18, 8698. (doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002) 6. Huntjens P, Pahl-Wostl C, Rihoux B, Schlter M, Flachner Z, Neto S, Koskova R, Dickens C, Nabide Kiti I. 2011 Adaptive water management and policy learning in a changing climate: a formal comparative analysis of eight water management regimes in Europe, Africa and Asia. Environ. Policy Govern. 21, 145163. (doi:10.1002/eet.571) 7. Bennett V, Sonia D-P, Maria NR (eds). 2005 Opposing currents: the politics of water and gender in Latin America. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. 8. Boelens R, Getches D, Guevara-Gil A. 2010 Out of the mainstream: water rights, politics and identity. London, UK: Earthscan. 9. Castro JE. 2008 Water struggles, citizenship and governance in Latin America. Development 51, 7276. (doi:10.1057/palgrave.development.1100440) 10. Cohen A. 2012 Rescaling environmental governance: watersheds as boundary objects at the intersection of science, neoliberalism, and participation. Environ. Plan. A 44, 22072224. (doi:10.1068/a44265) 11. Warner J, Wester P, Bolding A. 2008 Going with the ow: river basins as the natural units for water management. Water Policy 10, 121138. (doi:10.2166/wp.2008.210) 12. Olsson P, Gunderson LH, Carpenter SR, Ryan P, Lebel L, Folke C, Holling CS. 2006 Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 11, 18. 13. Pahl-Wostl C. 2009 A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multilevel learning processes in resource governance regimes. Glob. Environ. Change 19, 354365. (doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001) 14. Pahl-Wostl C, Nilsson C, Gupta J, Tockner K. 2011 Societal learning needed to face the water challenge. AMBIO 40, 549553. (doi:10.1007/s13280-011-0149-1) 15. Armitage D, Berkes F, Dale A, Kocho-Schellenberg E, Patton E. 2011 Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canadas Arctic. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 9951004. (doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006) 16. Newig J, Gnther D, Pahl-Wostl C. 2010 Synapses in the network: learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecol. Soc. 15, 24. 17. Peters B, Pierre J. 2001 Developments in intergovernmental relations: towards multi-level governance. Policy Polit. 29, 131136. (doi:10.1332/0305573012501251) 18. Conca K. 2006 Governing water: contentious transnational politics and global institution building. Boston, MA: MIT Press. 19. Watson N. 2007 Collaborative capital: a key to the successful practice of integrated water resources management. In Multi-stakeholder platforms for integrated water management (ed. J Warner), pp. 3148. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. 20. Biswas AK. 2004 Integrated water resources management: a reassessmenta water forum contribution. Water Int. 29, 248256. (doi:10.1080/02508060408691775) 21. Mitchell B. 2005 Integrated water resource management, institutional arrangements, and land-use planning. Environ. Plan. A 37, 13351352. (doi:10.1068/a37224) 22. Biswas AK. 2008 Integrated water resources management: is it working? Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 24, 522. (doi:10.1080/07900620701871718) 23. Mitchell B. 2007 Integrated catchment management and MSPs: pulling in different directions. In Multi-stakeholder platforms for integrated water management (ed. J Warner), pp. 4967. Burlington, VT: Ashgate. 24. Newson MD. 1997 Land, water, and development: sustainable management of river basin systems, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Routledge. 25. Savenije HHG, Van der Zaag P. 2008 Integrated water resources management: concepts and issues. Phys. Chem. Earth 33, 290297. (doi:10.1016/j.pce.2008.02.003) 26. Hering J, Ingold KM. 2012 Water resources management: what should be integrated? Science 336, 1234. (doi:10.1126/science.1218230)

13

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116

......................................................

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

27. Global Water Partnership. 2000 Towards water security: a framework for action. Stockholm, Sweden: Global Water Partnership. 28. Global Water Partnership. 2008 IWRM toolbox. Integrated water resources management. See http://www.gwptoolbox.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article& id=8&Itemid=3 29. Vrsmarty CJ et al. 2010 Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature 467, 555561. (doi:10.1038/nature09440) 30. Rockstrm J et al. 2009 A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472475. (doi:10.1038/461472a) 31. Rockstrm J et al. 2009 Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecol. Soc. 14, 32. 32. Robinson J. 2004 Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecol. Econ. 48, 369384. (doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.10.017) 33. EU Water Framework Directive. See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/waterframework/. 34. Brundtland GH, World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987 Our common future, vol. 383. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 35. Holling CS, Meffe GK. 1996 Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv. Biol. 10, 328337. (doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020328.x) 36. Ostrom V, Tiebout CH, Warren R. 1961 The organization of government in metropolitan areas: a theoretical inquiry. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 55, 831842. (doi:10.2307/1952530) 37. Ostrom E. 1990 Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 38. McCarthy J. 2005 Devolution in the woods: community forestry as hybrid neoliberalism. Environ. Plan. A 37, 9951014. (doi:10.1068/a36266) 39. Sneddon C, Fox C. 2007 Power, development, and institutional change: participatory governance in the Lower Mekong basin. World Dev. 35, 21612181. (doi:10.1016/ j.worlddev.2007.02.002) 40. Priscoli J, Wolf A. 2009 Managing and transforming water conicts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 41. Mehta L, Veldwisch GJ, Franco J. 2012 Introduction to the special issue: water grabbing? Focus on the (re) appropriation of nite water resources. Water Altern. 5, 193207. 42. Pahl-Wostl C, Mostert E, Tbara D. 2008 The growing importance of social learning in water resources management and sustainability science. Ecol. Soc. 13, 24. 43. Pahl-Wostl C. 2006 Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate and global change. Water Resour. Manage. 21, 4962. (doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9040-4) 44. Armitage DR et al. 2009 Adaptive co-management for socialecological complexity. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 95102. (doi:10.1890/070089) 45. Huitema D, Mostert E, Egas W, Moellenkamp S, Pahl-Wostl C, Yalcin R. 2009 Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-) management from a governance perspective and dening a research agenda. Ecol. Soc. 14, 26. 46. Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F. 2004 Adaptive co-management for building resilience in socialecological systems. Environ. Manage. 34, 7590. (doi:10.1007/s00267-003-0101-7) 47. Holling CS (ed.). 1978 Adaptive environmental assessment and management. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons. 48. Walters C. 1986 Adaptive management of renewable resources. New York, NY: Macmillan. 49. Walters CJ, Holling CS. 1990 Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71, 20602068. (doi:10.2307/1938620) 50. Pahl W. 1995 The dynamic nature of ecosystems: chaos and order intertwined. London, UK: Wiley. 51. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (eds). 2003 Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 52. Liu J et al. 2007 Complexity of coupled human and natural systems. Science 317, 15131516. (doi:10.1126/science.1144004) 53. Batterbury S, Fernando J. 2006 Rescaling governance and the impacts of political and environmental decentralization: an introduction. World Dev. 34, 18511863. (doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.019) 54. Gunningham N. 2009 The new collaborative environmental governance: the localization of regulation. J. Law Soc. 36, 145166. (doi:10.1111/j.1467-6478.2009.00461.x)

14

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116

......................................................

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

55. Perreault T, Bridge G. 2009 Environmental governance. In The companion to environmental geography (eds D Castree, D Demeritt, D Liverman, B Rhods), pp. 475397. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 56. Pierre J, Peters BG. 2000 Governance, politics, and the state. New York, NY: St Martins Press. 57. Rhodes RAW. 1996 The new governance: governing without government. Polit. Stud. 44, 652667. (doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb01747.x) 58. Pahl-Wostl C, Sendzimir J, Jeffrey P, Aerts J, Berkamp G, Cross K. 2007 Managing change toward adaptive water management through social learning. Ecol. Soc. 12, 30. 59. Mostert E, Pahl-Wostl C, Rees Y, Searle B, Tbara D, Tippett J. 2007 Social learning in European river-basin management: barriers and fostering mechanisms from 10 river basins. Ecol. Soc. 12, 19. 60. Ison R, Watson D. 2007 Illuminating the possibilities for social learning in the management of Scotlands water. Ecol. Soc. 12, 21. 61. United Nations Environment Programme 2007 IPCC fourth assessment report: climate change 2007 (AR4). Geneva, Switzerland: UNEP. 62. Bates BC, Kundzewicz ZW, Wu S, Palutikof JP (eds). 2008 Climate change and water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland. 63. Fischer G, Tubiello FN, van Velthuizen H, Wiberg DA. 2007 Climate change impacts on irrigation water requirements: effects of mitigation, 19902080. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 74, 10831107. (doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2006.05.021) 64. Armitage D. 2008 Governance and the commons in a multi-level world. Int. J. Commons 2, 732. 65. Pahl-Wostl C, Gupta J, Petry D. 2008 Governance and the global water system: a theoretical exploration. Glob. Govern. A, Rev. Multilateral. Int. Org. 14, 419435. 66. Cohen A, Davidson S. 2011 The watershed approach: challenges, antecedents, and the transition from technical tool to governance unit. Water Altern. 4, 114. 67. Parkes MW, Morrison KE, Bunch MJ, Hallstrm LK, Neudoerffer RC, Venema HD, Waltner-Toews D. 2010 Towards integrated governance for water, health and social ecological systems: the watershed governance prism. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 693704. (doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.06.001) 68. Imperial MT. 2005 Using collaboration as a governance strategy: lessons from six watershed management programs. Admin. Soc. 37, 281320. (doi:10.1177/0095399705276111) 69. Schlager E, Blomquist WA. 2008 Embracing watershed politics. Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado. 70. Wolf AT. 1999 Water wars and water reality: conict and cooperation along international waterways. In Environmental change, adaptation, and human security (ed. S Lonergan), pp. 251 265. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic. 71. Warner J. 2007 Multi-stakeholder platforms for integrated water management. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. 72. Lant C. 2001 Watershed governance in the United States: the challenges ahead. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 126, 4. 73. Genskow KD, Born SM. 2006 Organizational dynamics of watershed partnerships: a key to integrated water resources management. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 135, 5664. (doi:10.1111/j.1936-704X.2006.mp135001007.x) 74. Meinzen-Dick R, Zwarteveen M. 1998 Gendered participation in water management: issues and illustrations from water users associations in South Asia. Agric. Hum. Values 15, 337345. (doi:10.1023/A:1007533018254) 75. Brown J. 2011 Assuming too much? Participatory water resource governance in South Africa. Geograph. J. 177, 171185. (doi:10.1111/j.1475-4959.2010.00378.x) 76. Cleaver F. 1999 Paradoxes of participation: questioning participatory approaches to development. J. Int. Dev. 11, 597612. (doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1328(199906)11:4<597:: AID-JID610>3.0.CO;2-Q) 77. Garande T, Dagg S. 2005 Public participation and effective water governance at the local level: a case study from a small under-developed area in Chile. Environ. Dev. Sustainabil. 7, 417431. (doi:10.1007/s10668-004-3323-9) 78. Lennox J, Proctor W, Russell S. 2011 Structuring stakeholder participation in New Zealands water resource governance. Ecol. Econ. 70, 13811394. (doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.02.015)

15

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116

......................................................

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

79. Singh N. 2007 Equitable gender participation in local water governance: an insight into institutional paradoxes. Water Resour. Manage. 22, 925942. (doi:10.1007/s11269-007-9202-z) 80. Bulkeley H. 2005 Reconguring environmental governance: towards a politics of scales and networks. Polit. Geogr. 24, 875902. (doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2005.07.002) 81. Newig J, Fritsch O. 2009 Environmental governance: participatory, multi-leveland effective? Environ. Policy Govern. 19, 197214. (doi:10.1002/eet.509) 82. Moss T, Newig J. 2010 Multilevel water governance and problems of scale: setting the stage for a broader debate. Environ. Manage. 46, 16. (doi:10.1007/s00267-010-9531-1) 83. Perreault T. 2005 State restructuring and the scale politics of rural water governance in Bolivia. Environ. Plan. A 37, 263284. (doi:10.1068/a36188) 84. Reed MG, Bruyneel S. 2010 Rescaling environmental governance, rethinking the state: a three-dimensional review. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 34, 646653. (doi:10.1177/0309132509354836) 85. Sabatier P, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M. 2005 Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 86. Termeer C, Dewulf A, van Lieshout M. 2010 Disentangling scale approaches in governance research: comparing monocentric, multilevel, and adaptive governance. Ecol. Soc. 15, 29. 87. Sneddon C, Harris L, Dimitrov R, zesmi U. 2002 Contested waters: conict, scale, and sustainability in aquatic socioecological systems. Soc. Nat. Resour. 15, 663675. (doi:10.1080/ 08941920290069272) 88. Kliot N, Schmueli D, Shamir U. 2001 Institutions for management of transboundary water resources: their nature, characteristics and shortcomings. Water Policy 3, 215228. (doi:10.1016/S1366-7017(01)00008-3) 89. Giordano M, Giordano M, Wolf A. 2002 The geography of water conict and cooperation: internal pressures and international manifestations. Geograph. J. 168, 293312. (doi:10.1111/j.0016-7398.2002.00057.x) 90. Wolf AT, Yoffe SB, Giordano M. 2003 International waters: identifying basins at risk. Water Policy 5, 2960. 91. Blatter J, Ingram H (eds). 2001 Reections on water: new approaches to transboundary conicts and cooperation. Boston, MA: MIT Press. 92. Espey M, Towque B. 2004 International bilateral water treaty formation. Water Resour. 40, W05S05. (doi:10.1029/2003WR002534) 93. Sadoff CW, Grey D. 2002 Beyond the river: the benets of cooperation on international rivers. Water Policy 4, 389403. (doi:10.1016/S1366-7017(02)00035-1) 94. Uitto JI, Duda AM. 2003 Management of transboundary water resources: lessons from international cooperation for conict prevention. Geograph. J. 168, 365378. (doi:10.1111/ j.0016-7398.2002.00062.x) 95. UNWWAP. 2003 Water for people, water for life. United Nations World Water Assessment Program. Rome, Italy: FAO. 96. Zeitoun M, Eid-Sabbagh K, Talhami M, Dajani M. 2013 Hydro-hegemony in the Upper Jordan waterscape: control and use of the ows. Water Altern. 6, 86106. 97. Zeitoun M, Warner J. 2006 Hydro-hegemony: a framework for analysis of trans-boundary water conicts. Water Policy 8, 435460. (doi:10.2166/wp.2006.054) 98. Lundqvist J, Lohm U, Falkenmark M. 1985 Strategies for river basin management: environmental integration of land and water in a river basin. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel. 99. Gleick PH. 1993 Water and conict, fresh water resources and international security. Int. Security 18, 79112. (doi:10.2307/2539033) 100. Shrubsole D. 2004 Reections on recent developments in watershed management in Ontario and their implications for natural areas management. Environments 32, 113. 101. Palmer M. 2010 Water resources: beyond infrastructure. Nature 467, 534535. (doi:10.1038/467534a) 102. Allan JA. 2003 Virtual waterthe water, food, and trade nexus: useful concept or misleading metaphor? Water Int. 28, 106113. (doi:10.1080/02508060.2003.9724812) 103. Sophocleous M. 2002 Interactions between groundwater and surface water: the state of the science. Hydrogeol. J. 10, 5267. (doi:10.1007/s10040-001-0170-8) 104. Agrawal A, Gibson C. 1999 Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Dev. 27, 629649. (doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00161-2) 105. Brosius JP, Tsing AL. 1998 Representing communities: histories and politics of communitybased natural resource management. Soc. Nat. Resour. 11, 157168. (doi:10.1080/ 08941929809381069)

16

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116

......................................................

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

106. Brosius JP, Tsing A, Zerner C. 2005 Communities and conservation: histories and politics of community-based natural resources management. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littleeld. 107. Murdoch J, Abram S. 1998 Dening the limits of community governance. J. Rural Stud. 14, 4150. (doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(97)00046-6) 108. Ribot J, Agrawal A, Larson AM. 2006 Recentralizing while decentralizing: how national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Dev. 34, 18641886. (doi:10.1016/ j.worlddev.2005.11.020) 109. Agrawal A, Lemos M. 2007 A greener revolution in the making? Environmental governance in the 21st century. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 49, 3645. (doi:10.3200/ENVT.49.5.36-45) 110. Berry KA, Mollard E. 2010 Social participation in water governance and management. London, UK: Earthscan. 111. Marshall G. 2008 Nesting, subsidiarity, and community-based environmental governance beyond the local level. Int. J. Commons 2, 7598. 112. Plummer R, Armitage D. 2007 Crossing boundaries, crossing scales: the evolution of environment and resource co-management. Geogr. Compass 1, 834849. (doi:10.1111/ j.1749-8198.2007.00040.x) 113. Ribot J. 2004 Waiting for democracy: the politics of choice in natural resource decentralization. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. See http://pdf.wri.org/wait_for_democracy. pdf. 114. Norman ES, Bakker K. 2009 Transgressing scales: water governance across the CanadaUS borderland. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geograph. 99, 99117. (doi:10.1080/00045600802317218) 115. Leb C, Wouters P. 2014 The water security paradox and international law: securitisation as an obstacle to achieving water security and the role of law in de-securitising the worlds most precious resource. In Water security: principles, practices, perspectives (eds B Lankford, K Bakker, M Zeitoun, D Conway). London, UK: Earthscan. 116. Gerlak AK, Wilder M. 2012 Exploring the textured landscape of water insecurity and the human right to water. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 54, 417. (doi:10.1080/ 00139157.2012.657125) 117. Sultana F, Loftus A (eds). 2012 The right to water: politics, governance and social struggles. London, UK: Earthscan. 118. Brown JC, Purcell M. 2005 Theres nothing inherent about scale: political ecology, the local trap, and the politics of development in the Brazilian Amazon. Geoforum 36, 607624. (doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.09.001) 119. Swyngedouw E. 2000 Authoritarian governance, power, and the politics of rescaling. Environ. Plan. D, Soc. Space 18, 6376. (doi:10.1068/d9s) 120. Gibbs D, Jonas AEG. 2001 Rescaling and regional governance: the English regional development agencies and the environment. Environ. Plan. C, Govern. Policy 19, 269288. (doi:10.1068/c9908j) 121. Watts MJ, Bohle HG. 1993 The space of vulnerability: the causal structure of hunger and famine. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 17, 4367. (doi:10.1177/030913259301700103) 122. Chambers R. 1983 Rural development: putting the last rst. London, UK: Longman. 123. Sen A. 1981 Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 124. Kent G. 1993 Childrens rights to adequate nutrition. Int. J. Childrens Rights 1, 133154. 125. Hope R et al. 2012 Water security, risk and society synthesis report. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Water Security Network. 126. Harris L. 2005 Negotiating inequalities: democracy, gender, and politics of difference in water user groups of southeastern Turkey. In Environmentalism in Turkey: between democracy and development? (eds F Adaman, M Arsel), pp. 185201. Farnham, UK: Ashgate. 127. Harris L. 2009 Gender and emergent water governance: comparative overview of neoliberalized natures and gender dimensions of privatization, devolution and marketization. CGPC 16, 387408. (doi:10.1080/09663690903003918) 128. Sultana F. 2009 Fluid lives: subjectivities, gender and water in rural Bangladesh. CGPC 16, 427444. (doi:10.1080/09663690903003942) 129. Sultana F. 2009 Community and participation in water resources management: gendering and naturing development debates from Bangladesh. Trans. Inst. Br. Geograph. 34, 346363. (doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2009.00345.x) 130. Cleaver F. 1998 Choice, complexity, and change: gendered livelihoods and the management of water. Agric. Hum. Values 15, 293299. (doi:10.1023/A:1007511816437)

17

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116

......................................................

Downloaded from rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org on January 13, 2014

131. Islar M. 2012 Privatised hydropower development in Turkey: a case of water grabbing? Water Altern. 5, 376391. 132. Bossio D, Erkossa T, Dile Y, McCartney M, Killiches F, Hoff H. 2012 Water implications of foreign direct investment in Ethiopias agricultural sector. Water Altern. 5, 223242. 133. Woodhouse P. 2012 Foreign agricultural land acquisition and the visibility of water resource impacts in sub-Saharan Africa. Water Altern. 5, 208222. 134. Wolf AT. 1998 Conict and cooperation along international waterways. Water Policy 1, 251265. (doi:10.1016/S1366-7017(98)00019-1) 135. Wolf AT (ed.). 2002 Conict prevention and resolution in water systems. The management of water series. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. 136. Yoffe S, Wolf AT, Giordano M. 2003 Conict and cooperation over international freshwater resources: indicators of basins at risk. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 39, 11091126. (doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2003.tb03696.x) 137. Ferguson J. 1990 The anti-politics machine: development, depoliticization, and bureaucratic power in Lesotho. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. 138. Fairhead J, Leach M. 1996 Misreading the African landscape: society and ecology in a forest-savanna mosaic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 139. Li TM. 2007 Rendering technical. In The will to improve. London, UK: Duke University Press.

18

rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil Trans R Soc A 371: 20130116

......................................................