Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Water managers and scientists have progressively looked to IWRM to help
mitigate not only governance failures of the past, but also increasing uncertainty in
the future (Huntjens et al.
2011
; Lach et al.
2006
; Medema et al.
2008
) . For example
the GWP has developed an IWRM toolbox with a range of instruments that may
address governance failures (GWP
2000
). The GWP prescribes three groups of sub-
stantive elements that should support the implementation of these criteria. The com-
plementary components of an effective water resources management system are
seen to include core elements of the governance system, including relevant manage-
ment instruments (operational instruments for allocation, regulation, monitoring
and assessment, informational and economic instruments), an enabling environment
(general framework of policies, legislation, mechanisms for participation and coop-
eration) and clear institutional roles of different levels and stakeholders (levels of
action, management boundaries and capacity building) (GWP
2000
, p 30).
The GWP purports that the general consensus of the water community is that IWRM
is the 'only viable way forward for sustainable water use and management' (Rogers
and Hall
2003
, p 30). Yet there is still considerable debate on how the paradigm is
implementable in the governance realities that must apply them and whether the pre-
scriptions of IWRM actually generate successful outcomes in practice (Engle et al.
2011
; Ingram
2011
; Medema et al.
2008
; Meinzen-Dick
2007
). Many of the principles
for good water governance (framed within IWRM) from organisations such as GWP,
WWC are also seen as providing important insights in establishing best practice criteria
for developing adaptive policy in the face of climate change (Hurlbert
2009
; IISD
2006
). However, just as with previous trends, the greater range of conditions identified
by researchers as being conducive to creating effective institutions, the more loss of
nuance in broader policy application of such principles (Merrey et al.
2007
) .
References
Allan A (2008) Governance assessment methodology. Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science,
University of Dundee, Dundee
Bakker K (2003) Good governance in restructuring water supply: a handbook. Federation of
Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and the Program on Water Issues (POWI), Canada
Bauer CJ (1997) Bringing global markets down to earth: the political economy of water rights in
Chile, 1976-95. World Dev 25(5):639-656
Berkes FC, Folke C (2001) Back to the future: ecosystem dynamics and local knowledge. In:
Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natu-
ral systems. Island Press, Washington, DC
Brugnach M, Dewulf A, Pahl-Wostl C, Taillieu T (2008) Toward a relational concept of uncer-
tainty: about knowing too little, knowing too differently, and accepting not to know. Ecol Soc
13(2): [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss32/art30/
Demsetz H (1967) Toward a theory of property rights. Am Econ Rev Pap & Proc 79th Ann Meet
Am Econ Assoc 57(2):347-359
Engle NL, Johns OR, Lemos MC, Nelson DR (2011) Integrated and adaptive management of
water resources: tensions, legacies, and the next best thing. Ecol Soc 16(1):19. [online] URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss11/art19/
Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems.
Annu Rev Environ Resour 30(1):441-473. doi:
10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
Freeman J, Kolstad CD (2007) Moving to markets in environmental regulation: lessons from
Search WWH ::
Custom Search